First up, let me explain that I adore mosaic movies. Movies like Magnolia and Short Cuts are among my favorite movies ever.

That's why I like Wonderland so much. At first you have to keep your head together to see where the characters interact and at what level they are coping or not coping with their troubles. This was expertly done in this movie. But once you get the hang of it, this will not let you go until you see the credits.

You really felt close to the characters during the movie and they started to grow on you throughout the flick. This is probably in a large part accelerated by the audaciousness of the photography, which reminded me a lot of Festen or The Idiots (both Dogme 95 films). The grainy picture can be off-putting to some who are expecting to see a crisp clear picture. It is also the documentary style that makes this movie so real. That and of course the tremendously well acted performances.

But, of course there are things which aren't executed properly to my opinion. First, the character of the brother of the lot was not fleshed out enough to make him really a part of the family troubles. He clearly has run away without notice and ever since his parents have lived in disarray. I would have liked to have seen this explained a little more. Second there is the character of the black guy who still lives with his mom. I had a hard time believing this guy who was clearly infatuated with Nadia would still be living with his mother in such a timid way.

But all in all this was an excellent movie about regular people with regular problems in an enormous city like London. It was nice for a change to see a movie like this outside New York or Los Angeles. I award it the grade below because this took me by surprise and kept me locked on the screen for 108 minutes and that's a rare accomplishment these days.

9/10


In a sordid setting, the plot unfolds with a Contemporary feeling of British realism. Failure of relationships and family emerge in an Inner City environment. Suddenly the characters relate in a humanistic fashion. Though slightly contrived, we begin to accept to the message of the film. Brilliance of movement and color are stated and warmth and understanding are born. With a tear, we face sensitive and tentative feelings with the intent of the film, "Wonderland."


I was told at first that this was a typical woman's movie, but I -being male, 17 years old- was still interested to see it. And I loved it. It's a beautiful story about a normal family in London with all their recognizable problems, misfortunes etc.

This movie is so powerful because of its reality: especially the casting and dressing department have done a great job to create characters just like you and me (unlike those Hollywood-babes). For example, one of the main characters, Nadia (Gina McKee), is continuously wearing a casual rucksack and that's a thing we would never get to see in an American movie. The acting itself is very natural.

Little weaknesses: because the main characters are all part of one family, they are much alike and it was a little problematic for me to distinguish the different characters in the first 30 minutes; composer Michael Nyman seems to have understood the intimacy of the movie with his score but his music is a little too emphatic.

Overall, 'Wonderland' is a very gripping movie, it's a little like a soap opera but much, much better - mostly because of the great cast. I highly recommend this movie. 8/10


Wonderland is an excellent reality drama in the best British tradition. Just 4 days out of the lives of members of 1 London family. Their hopes and ambitions, doubts and inability to communicate a perfect illustration of modern day big city life.

The actors, though most of them well known from other British films and TV series always believable through very natural and modest acting.

Only bad thing I can say about this movie: Michael Nyman has gone way over the top on the soundtrack!


Michael Winterbottom's Wonderland uses the same formula as another movie of 1999, the beautiful Magnolia, in which we follow the life of many characters, which are linked together. The main difference between the characters of both movies, is that while Magnolia's characters were unconventional, those in Wonderland are the kind of people you cross on the streets everyday. But while the story between both movies are in the same vein, the treatment in each movie is totally different. While Magnolia was only about the many "main" characters in the movie, the OTHER PEOPLE get much of the camera's attention in Wonderland. In many scenes, the camera is distracted by people around the main characters. This is interesting since you get the feeling that everyone on the street has a story to tell. The acting is very convincing. You never get the feeling you are watching actors. Although some scenes are a bit too long, the movie is very rarely boring. I can only think of one scene where I thought "OK, enough, I get it... This is just too long.". Sometimes the documentary style camera is a bit annoying. Other times, it is perfect. A scene in an hospital at the end was memorable. All in all, this is a good movie, with some flaws but also beautiful moments.

80%


It's hard to concentrate on the many worthy aspects of this film (the naturalistic acting, unvarnished inner London) when trying to keep one's stomach settled. The hand-held camera thing is getting a little old (at least for me) and when combined with the arty fuzziness and the lousy print (Odeon Victoria) I couldn't enjoy this the way I should have. Great to see Canadian Molly Parker carrying off her role with aplomb, however, and Ian Hart remains as convincing as ever. In fact, every actor is superb. Think I'll try this on video on my 20" telly...


I have never been so depressed in my life. The movie tells the story of a family--a very dysfunctional family. The type of family that you actually pray for a happy ending to the movie. At the end of the movie, things seem to look up as they move on with their lives, but I just have a feeling that Jack will become a juvenile delinquent, Alice's parents will be so self-absorbed her future will be dismal. The only ones with a possibility of a future without a lifetime of pain is Franklin & Nardia. I can see how some people will appreciate the pain of everyday life...but this was just too much to bear!


This is just the kind of story a girl like me would like to be able to tell. No wonder us twentysomething women gave it a 9/10 on the general.

It's not hyperfast paced and not boring. It's not singleminded and not disperse. It's not totally plot driven nor does it dwell on deep psychological insights about the characters. It's better than a typical American romantic comedy. You know, it's not Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks again. It's more real life-ish, more emotional, less superficial and yet just as fun. It's the kind of movie where you want to make sure you have your bucket of popcorn, your soda and a comfortable place to sit. And yeah, it's the kind of movie that makes you leave the theatre feeling just a bit happier on the whole. :)


Recent trends in film narrative have witnessed the proliferation of multiple 'petite' narratives involving a series of inter-related characters who are all inter-connected in some way: pioneered by "Short Cuts" and followed by the likes of "Pulp Fiction", "Happiness", and the more recent "Magnolia". In their deliberate and manifest fragmentation, they immediately seem to offer a schizophrenic view of society and the lives depicted within it. Yet to interpret these films as such and only that would be to misunderstand the overall logic of these films. In their very diversity, they seem to offer an overall 'world view', whether it be clear-cut or oblique, in which the characters in these films are all part of the same condition.

Whether damning (as in "Happiness") or redemptive (as in "Magnolia"), their world view is ever-present. It is with "Wonderland" that we have a film which plays with this tension, I think, more skillfully than the aforementioned films. The film is primarily about the lives of three sisters (and their friends, partners, family, etc.) living in London, who are all disparate in terms of their personalities and lifestyles. Winterbottom's message, intimated by the title, is to show that they are all 'Alices in Wonderland'. It is about coming to terms with this predicament and expressing their emotions about it, that the films ably deals with.

Shooting his film on location with a shaky hand-held camera in brutally realist hues, Winterbottom reveals a London full of life - a background sharply contrasted by the three women pushed against it, highlighting their increasing loneliness and alienation, whether they accept it or not. Like "Magnolia", the first half of the film traces their predicament (each in powerfully unique ways) as it slowly reaches towards a discernible 'crisis point' in which these sisters are forced to accept fate.

Not wanting to laud the film too much on the basis of these humanist ideals, one must understand it with the notion of humanism in mind as this is the level at which it works best. Unlike "Happiness" in which Solondz wallows in the depravity of social misfits, Winterbottom valiantly offers a redemptive glimpse of humankind, in which despite all adversity, there is still hope yet.


A weekend in the lives of three sisters as Nadia looks for love, Debbie packs son Jack off to her ex's and Molly prepares for the birth of her first child. Meanwhile their mother is being driven to the point of insanity by the neighbours dog and their father is left weary and frustrated.

Filmed with a hand-held camera, Wonderland has a very documentary/ fly-on-the-wall feel, against the background of a very recognisable London.

Winner of '99s Best New British Film Award in the Birmingham Film & TV Festival, it's essentially a bleak and unsentimental look at disjointed lives in a big city, yet very rewarding


Recently, I have studied for one semester at a university in London and therefor I was very keen to see "Wonderland" when I got back to Germany. Unfortunately, I have just seen the german dubbed version but even without the english dialogue I recognized the London that I had experienced.

The plot is similar to the films of Robert Altman as it is about a group of people who are all linked together, and the film follows the everyday life of these figures for a certain amount of time. In the case of "Wonderland" it is the family bond that unites the characters. In the centre of the constellation are the three sisters Molly, Debbie and Nadia.

"Wonderland" is sometimes quite depressing as we see the problems that all the characters have to face, and as director Michael Winterbottom shows us how all of the pair relationships in the film form a very own kind of private hell. This is not presented in Hollywood style where even pain looks glamorous. "Wonderland" is very close to life, no stylization. Most of the film (if not everything) has been filmed with a hand camera on location on London streets, pubs, flats, etc. and indeed, when you have ever been to London (or England) for a longer period of time than you will be able to see that story and characters could happen everyday in everybody's life.


Every so often I am reminded of the inadvisability of rushing to judgement on a single viewing. Michael Winterbottom's "Wonderland" is a case in point. I got very little out of this first time round, in fact my reaction was positively antagonistic; characters seemingly as shallow as those in a currently popular BBC soap opera with a similar London setting, but here handled with that clumsy hand held camera cinema verite look, which for me is always a turn-off unless the material itself is brilliant - "The Dream Life of Angels" and "La Promesse" for instance. I suppose it was the rave comments of so many that drew me back for a second viewing. I can see now that the film has a lot going for it. As a study of unfulfilled lives it is never less than perceptive and is often quite touching, the boy at the football match, the childbirth scene, reactions to the son's answerphone message and the death of a dog where our sympathies suddenly shift from the tormented to the neighbours from hell. I can honestly say it is a film I have quite grown to like. Where I would part company with its devotees however is in my degree of admiration. It is certainly not to be compared with the best work of Mike Leigh and Ken Loach mainly because it lacks their genius for character development. Unlike the characters in masterworks such as "Secrets and Lies" and "My Name is Joe", those in "Wonderland" are one-dimensional: we know all there is to know about them on their first appearance. And then there is that totally inappropriate score by Michael Nyman swamping scenes of everyday life with a spurious pseudo-classical muzak, banal lyrical lines accompanied by throbbing repeated chords. "Wonderland" would have benefited intrinsically from being without a score. In any case it is a classic example of a film needing to stand on its own feet without the prop of so called "luverly" music. Would it survive so well without in popular esteem is the question!


i quite enjoyed this film. the only problem i had with it was that i wanted to see more of gina mckee's character explored - i think all the characters were spread a little thin and it could have been better if there was more focus to fewer characters. mckee was the highlight of the film (she often is) and her storyline was especially good.

overall i thought the family dynamics were great - in a horrifying way. the parents were terribly distressing. i found the brother storyline slightly confusing and unnecessary. i would like to have known more about him or nothing at all.

anyway, i thought it was a decent film, worth seeing by all means.


Probably , this is the most incredible picture i 've ever seen. Wintterbottom following the way of a fantastic Leigh , could show the autentic atmosphere of the cold London . Every person who has been there , can notice how the director can give us a little piece of the londoner reality. With a fantastic crew and actors the film became one of the most perfect of the nieneties.


This is a beautifully made movie which brings Michael Winterbottom back to similar territory explored in his first two, and best movies. It's saubject matter and acting are wonderfully naturalistic, but it's cinematogrphic style owes more, with it's constantly moving camera and exquisite use of filters that make Lambeth appear more beautiful than it could ever do in reality, to the movies of Wong-kar Wai. It's the sort of movie that would be demeaned by having it's plot explained, like trying to explain Beethoven's Ninth symphony to a deaf person in sign language. Actaully, it's so beautiful visually and it's humanism is so deep that a deaf person might enjoy it. Please go and see it.


Seriously don't bother. If you're bored and looking for watch a film to fill in some time, don't make it this one. It might be alright if you're specifically looking to watch some pretentious pseudo verite bullsht. Maybe. The attempt to create realism through jerky hand-held camera work is distracting and enough to give you motion-sickness, the film-stock is grainy and unattractive, the characters are grating and impossible to empathize with and the music was craptastic. Everything about this film irritated me, from the over-used disjointed jump cuts to the ridiculously heavy-handed and out of place piano scoring, and the boring plot (and I hesitate to bestow 'plot' on the disjointed wreck that is Wonderland).

I also disliked Wonderland's recurring gimmicky motifs - eg. character's moment of reflection = fast motion + slow motion + shitty *emotive* piano music. (Quick! A character is thinking! Cue the piano music and stock city footage! My, how ironic it is that despite being in a city surrounded by people this character is so isolated. How *profound*. In fact, it's so profound, lets use it again!.... and again!.... and again!) I'm guessing Wonderland was an attempt to be an insightful meditation on the reality of the lives of a bunch of everyday people dealing with modern life or some crap like that. The problem with that is that real life is boring. So why bother to make a film of what people see everyday? Without offering any kind of different insight or narrative or point of difference to create ANY sort of interest AT ALL? What I did last week is as interesting as any one of Wonderland's inconsequential narratives. In fact if Wonderland's plot is what passes as film-worthy these days, I think I could make a living shitting out weekly screenplays of what I've done each week. It's cinema verite! It's art! It's genius! It's... totally boring. If you want real life boredom, turn off your TV and go talk to some real life vapid morons. At least that way you don't have to fork out for video rental.

Watching Wonderland is like going to a bad party - the music is bad, the people are boring, pretentious and unattractive, and while it's only a couple of hours until it's over, it seems like much, much, longer.


This special feature from HBO a couple of years back was one of the best original programs ever done for the network. Worthy of PBS even. Taking the documented words of people who were enslaved in this country and having their comments read to us was a wonderful idea and gave viewers a more true insight for what the life of a slave was often like. It rips to pieces all of those ignorant assumptions over the years that slavery wasn't "all that bad". Only the worst kind of human being with a lack of education, common sense or human dignity could ever think such a thing in the first place. Unfortunately though there are many people out there who fit that category. It was a stroke of genius to pick a handful of well known black celebrities to put a face on the people whose words they were reading. Even better these celebrities, for the most part, were actors who had the ability to convey the emotion and cadence of the language used. It is as if they transport you safely back in time and give you a glimpse of a world that has fortunately passed but unfortunately has been forgotten. And by that I mean that Americans, of all races, simply do not want to deal with the subject much. Glad to see a TV special that tackles the subject honestly and does not sugarcoat the evils of this nation's history. Bravo to everyone involved.

With that out of the way let me also address the clown KompliKated (might as well add the extra "K") and his blatantly ignorant comments on this special. He wrote the same junk on the HBO boards and its annoying he is trying to spread his dis-information to every site he can. You can tell how disingenuous he was by stating at first that he had hoped to come away with some insight on the situation (meaning the history of slavery from those who lived it) but was instantly disappointed. Absurd. I guess he was expecting a program that was more pro-slavery with comments from former slaves who had nothing but praise for the lives they led before they were free. Must have been too many viewings of "Gone With the Wind" that made him think this. Seriously though would anyone watch a special on the Holocaust and expect the words of survivors to suggest that their experiences in death camps to have been a treat and that the Nazis weren't all that bad? Of course not.

KompliKated wrote that the special was only filmed to provoke anger and served no purpose other than to create resentment, blah, blah, blah. No, sir. The purpose was to educate and to give voice to those that suffered from such a sick institution such as slavery. It was a memorial to a chapter in this country's history. People SHOULD be angry over what happened but I don't recall the program suggesting that any black person should go attack any white person because of what occurred back in that time. He called it a racist propaganda that pours salts on open wounds. Laughable. It is racist to recite the words of former slaves in which all they did was relay their own experiences? The documentation of their suffering is propaganda? What ugly hyperbole. The problem with a lot of Americans (specifically white ones) is that they are all about remembering events in America's favor. They will never grow tired of reading and hearing about how American soldiers fought so bravely during WW2 and how the US saved France from Germany. They don't tire of bringing up (in movies, novels, history texts) how the British Empire was unfair to the American colonies which led to the American Revolution. They don't tire of the frequent mention of all the American heroes, all of the American good deeds, all of the positive moments in American history. But when someone has the audacity to point out the flaws and the bad that occurred in America, by the hands of American leaders and citizens, and all of a sudden they can't handle it. They ignore it if at all possible and ask why are the people who are bringing it up still living in the past. Hypocrites. That is why a special like this goes virtually ignored. It reminds people of America's ugly past and slaps them with cold, hard truths. Truths that go against their image of the USA and what it has stood for. That is why Americans don't have any problems not "moving on" when it comes to depicting the Nazi regime in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. But when it comes to depicting a non-romanticized view of American slavery this country closes its eyes, cuffs its ears and hums really loudly to ignore the facts. That's a mark of insecurity.

People like KompliKated are stuck in their ways and can't be reached and frankly its pointless to even bother trying. But for those of you out there who are truly objective and are capable of sitting back and learning something then I would advise you watch this presentation. Its not about whether this program is trying to generate guilt or anger or sadness. Its purpose is simply to foster more understanding on slavery's effect on a people. And it does that splendidly I might add.


I went to the trouble of registering at this site just so I could disagree with the previous reviewer. I think this is a fantastic document. If it causes people to look with sorrow and anger at the immoral behavior of slaveholders, well - it should.

I also disagree vehemently with people who say: "this should be seen especially by African-Americans." I think it should be seen especially by white Americans because the slave experience, now that all the eye-witnesses are long dead, is in danger of being forgotten. I am a Jew and feel fearful about the death of the last Holocaust survivors. Already there are people saying it never happened. So, too, with the horrors of slavery. But within this DVD are the voices, real and vital, of the witnesses. The WPA book series (which is available free to read on the Library of Congress site) is a priceless part of our history. Yes, I shudder with grief and rage at the behavior of the whites who participated in, condoned, or simply tolerated the treatment of blacks under slavery.

The readings are beautifully done. The actors are great and very involved in the project. The editing is exceptionally good. The music, primarily by the McIntosh County Shouters, is also great. The period photography is used to perfect effect - we can look right into those eyes and imagine what they saw. Editing is unobtrusive, that is to say that we hear the voices of the slaves undimmed by egotists on the modern end.


This program has been out for a couple of years now but every time it premiered I never gave much thought to it. I mean black actors retelling the lives of former slaves? It seemed like an insult to those who lived that in that time, or so I thought. The truth is no matter how much its not talked about in mainstream media outlets or how downplayed the subject receives.

Slavery in America is American History. I thought it was simply some PR joke have black actors reading the stories of former slaves, but after watching it and seeing the pictures and hearing the sounds I understood. I tip my hats of to the actors reading and admit my error in prejudging this documentary. There were moments in which I just had chills because it was real. I never understood the meaning of Juneteeth until watching this and over all I came away learning more.

My fear now is that younger generations, who have my mindset prior to watching this, see it as something to fall asleep on not important or it's in the past. If anything, history in general teaches us that things that go forgotten often repeat themselves. I hope that for something as insidiously evil as slavery, the holocaust, or any of the current dealings with Middle Easterners or Latinos, I hope that we get over the hatred and can move on knowing our past and move forward.


I really enjoyed watching this documentary. More than anything, the readers were phenomenal. The readers brought those ex-slaves' voices to life. I must make it a point to see the readers' future projects :)

This documentary allowed me to truly feel the horrors of slavery: people being stripped of their identity, heritage, dignity, and self-respect. Watching this documentary didn't make me angry or hateful, although the descriptions of the violence were hard to swallow (hey, it happened. No need to deny that the US slavery was violent and emotionally damaging to the slaves and some of their descendants).

This documentary is not for the faint-hearted. Read a slave narrative if you want to know about slavery from the perspective of someone who was a slave. Reading about graphic violence may be better for some than hearing it in a documentary.


Excellent watch...... Not sure how anyone could have a close minded outlook on such a powerful documentary. This was a very informative piece and breaking it down into such simple terms just negates the whole purpose of the interviews. You get a first hand account of slave life, it will not be pretty at all though there were some times of joy in their lives. Recommended if a firsthand, true account of slavery as it truly was would interest you. The celebrity list is extensive, full of prominent black actors/actresses reading excerpts of the interviews conducted so many years ago. The rawness of the production along with the photo's of actual slaves being shown whilst the narrator speaks is one of the more appealing aspects of the production.


This is very moving film, that needed to be made. It shows the inhumanity of slavery from the point of view of those who lived it. With the visual help of Ed Bell, Edward Bell, and Thomas Lennon ,the stories from former slaves that were recorded long ago are brought to life through narratives by some of today's top African-American actors and actresses.This film touches on common aspects that occurred in the everyday lives of slaves. All of the narratives were recorded all across the U.S when many of the former slaves were very old in age.All of the stories were then put into an anthology on which this film is based.This is indeed a film everyone should watch and learn from.


This program goes through the history of slavery with an open and honest account of how brutal and heinous slavery was. The celebrities who read the slave narratives, some how transform themselves to the viewer. Almost like the former slaves are coming to life through them. The photos of the slaves and unbelievable slave quarters are heart breaking. I tried to look for smiles in the faces of the slaves and i found none. From old men and women to children, it was truly a depressing time. Who would smile in the face of such horror? You don't have to hear the readings of the narratives to understand what they were going through just look at their faces and that truly tells the story. The film is great and very informative. I highly recommend it.


But this quickly became the most exploitive and narrow minded experience I have ever witnessed. I have never seen an actual American tragedy so exploited for the sake of one singular goal....to provoke anger and hatred. This "film" served no other purpose than to create deep hatred and resentment. It would amount to the same effect if the 9/11 footage of those planes crashing into the WTC were shown a hundred years from now, and the viewers were intentionally misled into believing that these crashes happened all over America that day, that every single American was physically harmed, and every person from Middle Eastern descent was responsible. Written words from the survivors would be read by future celebrities who are sure to emphasise pain and hate...more pain and hate...and yet, more pain and hate. Never explaining the origins of the tragedy, the after effects of the tragedy, nor the eventual lessons learned and the healing of the tragedy. The future viewers would simply be filled with HATE for all Middle Eastern people. If anyone who is even remotely responsible for participating in Unchained Memories claims this film had any other intentions except to pour salt on a re-opened wound, then I would boldly call them a liar. This film is by no means an emotional, informative and enlightening event. It is flat out a racist piece of propaganda that repulsively used an actual, horrific tragedy to base it's venom upon. I bet every time it's shown on HBO, black on white crime increases all over America. The makers of this "Hate Film" can claim 'mission accomplished.' Jeez, I can't wait to see the tunnel vision, hate film about the Jewish holocaust....maybe the makers of Unchained Memories can do an equally superior job of distorting and manipulating that tragedy.


First I watched this cartoon 2 years ago, after three episodes I understood that this is stupid cartoon about stupid unreal people. First Cramp family. Brainless father, mother with soapy brain, aggressive Wayne, Lucien, who supposed to be smart, is just to obsessed with ecology, healthy food etc... Winkle family is another strange family, rich, fat, stupid aggressive father, Wendy, who is too obsessed with Wayne and hate all other children and people etc. Parsons family is just... just ancient, they have never visited school, they don't have paper, they live near Cramp family, but in a house made of junk near bog. If characters and situations from many other cartoons can be projected on real people, these are too unreal and not funny, that is the reason for not to watch this cartoon.


Cramp Twins goes over a set of Twins

Lusinen have the grand smart brain

And Wayne have the dumb but artistic brain

They have there good times

And they have there bad times

But The Cramp Twins gives grand trouble

Lusine must to be get by Wayne of the quarter

And they must to be laughing for 4kids

They have a own house Mom; Some Times is she smart ; some times is she not Bette than the bad workers They have times of harmony and they have times of grand trouble !!!

The Cramp Twins is on 4kids TV and is GREAT !!!!!!!


A few years ago when I was a bit younger, I used to not mind this show(I'm now 16). But when I saw it again last month I must say that it was just plain boring and annoying to me. It's still full of the same old rubbish and nothing has changed.

It is all about two twin brothers called Wayne and Lucien Cramp who have nothing at all in common and look nothing like each other. Lucien is like a nature boy who's always hanging round an old swamp and Wayne's like a hard man who likes playing with metal and junk from a scrap yard for some reason. They both dislike each other and are always fighting and at war with each other and after watching several or more episodes of the series this becomes really irritating and just makes you want to jump into your TV set and strangle them both.

Overall this show has its few moments but for most of the time its just annoying. I'm shocked its still on TV after three or four years now. I give The Cramp Twins 3/10 stars. There are many far more impressive kids shows on TV today, do not waste too much time on this one.


Tasteless and embarrassing.

Tasteless exposure of nearly every embarrassing thing you never want the world to know about your family - plus a few more things that make watching this movie quite uncomfortable.

Judge Reinhold's characteristic awkward, uncomfortable performance could have been used to gain the sympathy of the viewer. Instead it became simply boring. But I don't blame him. The overall lack of comedic timing in this movie indicates serious problems throughout production. The movie had plenty of clever gag ideas as well as some bad ones. Many of the situations touched on were ones that the average person could relate to. The problem was in the amateurish implementation, nearly every - step - of - the - way. Each of the actors and actresses had good moments: good facial expressions and reactions. But, at the end of each scene, one shouldn't be left wondering "what was that all about?". The gags were thrown out there, but the scenes weren't polished: the bedroom-sharing scene ended on a very lame note. The nude shower scene was obviously intended as a gross-out piece, but that's all it was - disgusting, not funny. Even a mud-wrestling scene provides no satisfaction for the male audience. What was the point of including it, then?

"Since this project is categorized as being in production", I hope that the producers will take the time to reconnect the dots and polish up the scenes. There is potential, here, for a good movie.

Apart from that, one thing the movie managed to do quite well was to totally denigrate the profession of anesthesiology. Now, I'm not a big fan of doctors, but the absolute insult to this medical specialty was sad and unnecessary. I feel truly sorry for them, now.

The best line in the movie is one that sums up the entirety of the experience: "Nothing here makes any sense"


I almost never give movies a 1/10; even really bad films usually have some small redeeming qualities. Unfortunately Thanksgiving Family Reunion is so mind-numbing bad it isn't even worth seeing for a cheap laugh.

Horribly delivered, unfunny, often embarrassing jokes, terrible acting, completely forgettable characters, and no plot or direction what so ever. A completely pointless waste of time from start to finish.

Remember when National Lampoon made good films like "Animal House" and "Vacation"? Where did it go so horribly wrong?

1/10 all the way.


i thought it was going to be funny with the previews on TBS, but when I saw the real thing, it was pathetic. Somehow the film was serious than actually funny. Its about a depressed man for which his family doesn't give a damn about him. Bryan Cranston plays the long lost cousin of Judge Reinhold for which he is a putz on the nervous breakdown and wants a real relationship with his family. Bryan was the reason i watched this movie.


Of all the National Lampoon movies this is definitely among the best. Mitch Snider, anesthesiologist, and his rich unappreciative family are in for the surprise of their lives when a letter arrives from long lost cousin Woodrow Snider. Woody invites his family to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, and Mitch, longing for a true family celebration, is game and drags his reluctant family along with him. Mitch's expectations are far from what he gets when they arrive and find their cousins are hippies with a crazy son and a goth daughter. Their yard is a washing machine graveyard and their meals depend on which animal passes away first, and for Thanksgiving dinner, Woody and his wife Pauline are anxiously awaiting their TB ridden turkey to pass. Mitch and his wife Jill quickly become uncomfortable with many other things on their visit, including having to share a bedroom with a very intimate and freaky Woody and Pauline. Overall a very funny movie that can help you feel grateful at Thanksgiving for the simple fact that you're not related to this crazy family. 10 out of 10 stars.


I feel that this movie is terrible. None of the parts were funny at all to me. Also, if the movie was set in Idaho, then why there is no snow and why the people are wearing summer clothes? People in Idaho do not wear that stuff during Thanksgiving. Since this movie was filmed in Canada, I feel that the movie should have been filmed in January, instead of warm weather season, or they could have change the location of the movie, where people wear summer stuff during Thanksgiving (like Tennessee or Mississippi or Alabama or Texas (to be filmed in Canada, if that's the case)). Also, I feel that the movie should have been made ten years ago with Chevy Chase. I think that it would have been a good movie with Chevy in there.

Grade: F


What an insult to all the previous National Lampoon Vacation movies! Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Randy Quaid and the others who helped make the National Lampoon Vacation movie series great over the past 20 years should be apologized to. This movie was absolute horrible! Judge Reinhold I felt was the wrong person to play the character Mitch Snyder. (I'm glad they had sense enough not to call him Clark Griswold as well!). The movie never really produced any genuine all-out laughs.

If you're a big fan of the National Lampoon Vacation movies, you're gonna be disappointed with this one. All I will say is it's a good thing it was made-for-tv movie and was free!


This movie was as lame as they come. Right in step with all the other straight to video/TV National Lampoon ventures. I tuned in hoping for humor because I enjoyed the works of other members of the cast, specifically Bryan Cranston and Penelope-Ann Miller. I was hoping to see Judge Reinhold in something that might be up to par with his long ago comedies. I think I was also sucked in by the fact that this was from the writers of Vegas Vacation, which despite many others opinions is a National Lampoon movie I very much enjoyed. No such luck. There is none of the trademark N.L.'s wit to this movie. The jokes are dull, beyond low brow, and fall totally flat. This is one movie you won't be sorry you missed.


all i gotta say for this movie is that it blows, pointless story line,crappy cast, no laughs, waste of my time and the TV stations, the best part of this movie was the mud wrestling all though it lasted some 5 seconds i love meghan in this movie and i think she was the only bright spot but ya this movie blows i give it a third of a star(only cuz they mud wrestled) out of 5, plz don't watch this movie even if it is the only thing on TV i personally would go to sleep but eh its the best option considering this movie will put u to sleep wut a waste to the national lampoon series damn id rather watch van wilder again at least it had some laughs, o well this is wut the movie world has come to


My God that's probably the 1st time anyone has ever asked that question. The main problem with this this movie is that it's too long. With commercials its running time is about 2 hours. It's about 1 hour and 58 minutes too long. Were sleeping tablets issued to the cast before filming? The real turkey on Thanksgiving was the film.


Naional Lampoon's Thanksgiving reunion was extremely hilarious! Bryan Cranston, kept me laughing all night long, and Judge Reinhold right after him. I certainly hope that they show this again before next year.


This film proudly opens with the following announcement: "The producers wish to express their sincerest gratitude to the members of the underwater crew who risked their lives to film the shark sequences without the benefit of cages or other protective devices". Hell yeah they should be grateful! Especially because, at that point, the cameramen probably didn't yet know anything about how tepid the story lines and how ridiculous the plot of "Mako: The Jaws of Death" actually were! I'm secretly convinced that these people severely regretted the life-endangering efforts they made once they got to see the finished product. "We risked our lives for this piece of crap?!?" And they would be right, too. Anyways, let's start with a bit of good news first! Despite the title and the big virulent white teeth parading the VHS-cover, this is NOT a rip-off of Jaws at all. Writer/director William Grefé only eagerly cashed in on the popularity of sharks in horror movies, but he was ambitious enough to come up with an entirely original and personal story-idea, albeit an incredibly silly one. Sonny Stein has a great understanding with sharks and refers to them as his friends. That is to say, he feeds the sharks and protects them against greedy fishermen, and in exchange they don't eat him when he goes for a swim. The kind of relationship Willard had with rats. Through a flashback, Stein explains to a random striptease dancer how an old & anonymous shaman handed him a peculiar amulet, and since then the sharks obey him. Stein is also extremely naive and dumb, as he 'donates' sharks, supposedly for good causes, to a science lab and to a sleazy (and mega-fat) bar-owner for an original entertainment act. When both place abuse the animals, Stein immediately avenges his friends. The script is too implausible & idiotic for words, but everyone involved takes it very serious, like it's the most essentially moralistic nature-versus-humans movie ever made. However, there are one or two good sequences to enjoy, notably the one where the shark-whispering hero kills a poacher and drags him behind his own boat; his mouth attached to a hook. The budget was generally very low, so don't expect too many special effects. Heck, whenever there's supposed to a shark attack going on, you just see a couple of fuzzy images and water mixed with red paint to raise the impression the sea turned red with blood. The acting performances are downright atrocious to observe. Especially Richard Jaeckel ("The Amazing Mr. No Legs", "Grizzly") really sucks in the lead. Maybe he subconsciously realized that the screenplay was a bunch of nonsense and his acting talent therefore went on a strike. His character also hasn't got a sense of humor, which is a huge mistake according to me. He doesn't use his shark-friends to score with the ladies, doesn't say anything witty when he hunts down shark killers and he doesn't even make a joke about how astonishingly fat and tasteless the owner of the striptease bar is! He's just a silent, arrogant and asocial loner who cares too much about sharks. How sad. I'm generously rewarding this film with a four out of ten rating because I appreciate the effort and because I like sharks but, in all honesty, "Mako: The Jaws of Death" isn't worth any rating higher than two.


the protagonist of this movie is very much like his near-sexual obsession - the shark - as it is described: a "misunderstood predator". Added to this, as a vengeful crusader for shark equality he's not only a murderous psychopath, he's also an unfriendly, arrogant man with a big ugly medallion and no sense of humor. In this film humans and sharks both live in competitive worlds where hunting is both the business and the pleasure. Don't expect anything edifying. The dialogue is histrionic and combative with a few genuine gems like: "You are a SICKIE! Get out of here you SHARK-LOVER!"

Indeed, it's implied that sharks replace women for our curiously masculine anti-hero - ("I wouldn't be surprised if them baby sharks come out lookin' just like him.") In the beginning, he sits at a bar and watches a sexy woman on stage, as the audience hoots and howls. Later, the girl is replaced by a shark...yes, It's a feeding frenzy of abysmal performances!

I would recommend this film for one reason alone - the soundtrack. There are some nice ambient grooves in here, and more than one scene has music similar to Pink Floyd circa 1969, with keyboards from 'More' or 'Ummagumma'...only this is easy listening music for creatures with walnut-sized brains.


This film starts off by thanking the underwater directorial team for risking their lives for the making of it. I sincerely hope that this is just some sort of ploy and not actually the case, as Mako: The Jaws of Death is definitely not a film that anyone should even consider risking their life over. In 1975, Steven Spielberg released what is probably the great shark movie of all time with Jaws, but he really has a lot to answer for as that film inspired a whole host of awful (mostly Italian) rip-offs. I've only seen a handful of Jaws rip-offs, but even among the few that I've seen  Mako: The Jaws of Death surely ranks right down near the bottom, and that's actually a shame because it has a fairly decent plot idea going for it. Basically, we focus on a man with a bond for sharks. He keeps a few as 'friends' but attracts interest from local entities - including a scientist and a nightclub. He ends up loaning out some of his sharks, but is not impressed with their treatment and so decides to take his revenge...

The film does manage a true seventies exploitation style and while the film obviously shot on a very low budget, it still manages to be fairly good in that respect. The problem really is with the way that the plot is developed as it doesn't fulfil its potential and none of the characters are interesting enough to really care about, and that unfortunately includes the lead who really should have been a lot better considering his strange interest in sharks. There are a couple of familiar faces in the cast list - most notably Richard Jaeckel and Harold Sakata, who is credited in this film as Harold "Oddjob" Sakata. Unfortunately (saying that a lot in this review...), considering that the film is about sharks, sharks actually don't feature all that often and when they do it's a bit of a let-down. The film also lacks a lot of humour, and while it's clear that the filmmakers were not making a serious horror film to the audience; apparently they themselves were oblivious that fact! Overall, Mako: The Jaws of Death is a silly and tepid film and should not really be viewed by anyone!


I just purchased a DVD copy of this film, having subsisted on an ancient VHS tape for a few years. Alas, the DVD appears to have been mastered from either very poor stock, or from a VHS tape. The opening sequence is almost unwatchable. Even the credits appear blurry. The picture is dark and seems out of focus. I don't remember it being this way when I saw it in the theaters. Then again, I was six, so what did I know? I still like the psychic/psychotic connection Jaeckel has with the sharks, although I could definitely lose the hokey "shark medallion" sequence, which accomplished nothing. I've ordered a new DVD edition put out by a different company. Both versions sell very cheaply on Ebay. We'll see how it goes.


This is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. My wife, some friends, and I rented this because we thought we could at least laugh at how bad it was. We were wrong.

The basic story has some, but little, promise or value, while the plot development and screenplay are extremely forced, contrived, and, in a word, cretinous. The basic story itself is ludicrous but could have been the core of a much better film had the development been handled with at least some skill, and had the makers not thrown in seemingly haphazard, unexplained scenes or focused on apparently irrelevant events that seem destined to have some role only to be forgotten half way through. The directing, acting, etc., are all utterly dreadful and the cinematography is little better than that of a home-made movie. Richard Jaeckel, befitting his vast experience compared to the other cast members, is a bit better than the others and only he sometimes has some dim spark that brings his acting up to a mediocre level. The other "actors" are universally abysmal. I could add more, but this film really isn't worth much effort.


I am a connoisseur of "horror" movies/series, and have seen them all since the 1950s, but One Step Beyond remains the scariest of all the series. The only one that came close was Boris Karloffs'-Thriller! John Newlands' beginning monologue reels you in, to have you gripping the arms of your chair during the story, too scared out of your wits to even move, then having the story ending to Mr.Newlands epilogue to further heighten your anxiety of being too fearful to go to sleep!! Unlike..Twilight Zone, Hitchcock, Night Gallery,Tales from the Crypt, Outer Limits and X-Files which ALL have humorous episodes which discount their "scare-quotient", and leaves you disappointed....however "O.S.B."satisfies the most discriminating of "scary-movie" tastes !!! O.S.B never had one "hokey" episode that would tickle your funny bone and that is what makes for excellent scare tactics. I wish they had this series on DVD !!!


Contrary to popular opinion.....this series was the scariest, next to Boris Karloff's.."Thriller"! The accompanying music along with John Newlands' melodramatic "matter-of-fact" voice, made for the some of the most "frightening" television watching for kids (like myself) growing up in the 50s & 60s. So much so, I slept with my parents after watching a few episodes. Rod Serlings' Twilight Zone was good...but not "scary"..even some episodes were down-right "funny" !!! Not one of "One Step Beyond's" had a humorous episode! And I suppose, that's why they don't show any re-runs today, because most people are "wimps" and can't handle the "real" scary stuff...like.. "Aliens", "The Thing", "Predator", The Hidden, Nite-Flyer and "PitchBlack" just to name a few.....I sure wish I could get my hands on that series.!!!!


When I think that The Twilight Zone and One Step Beyond were created and ran at the same time, it is hard to believe. Why? The production qualities of OSB seem "cheap", "noirish" and old-fashioned at first viewing. But that's the wrong way of looking at them. I think these are a plus to the mood and execution!

What makes this series in some ways superior to TTZ is that these are not fantastical concoctions of the mind, but derived from actual accounts from reality! The casting in these is wonderful, too. Many wonderful portrayals in these. Although in some cases, the acting styles may seem dated to some viewers. It is exactly these qualities which somehow make OSB even more interesting and believable to the viewer. Well...at least this viewer.

I am on a quest to find all of these episodes...I just bought the 10 DVD/40 episode compilation and cannot wait to fly through them!

Recommended to those of you, select few, who enjoy good drama, mystery and discovery, wherever and however you find it.


I remember that particular episode. It was very scary. We spent a lot of time at school discussing who the body in the glider came back at that precise moment. My friend Pat always claimed she thought some mental person kept and let it go just at that precise time. I always thought it was the announcer that set the mood for the episode. I found a few DVD's with some of the episodes (not this one though) and although they are kind of "hokey" by todays standards they are still entertaining.

My personal favorites was the episode about the family curse. In the middle ages a nobleman has a village woman burned at the stake because he believes the woman bewitched his son into killing himself over love for her. As she is led away she places a curse on his family that the eldest son will alway die before the father. This happens throughout the centuries until the present (1959) when the current lord is dying. The eldest son is scared to death because of the curse. His younger brother tells him the stay in the library until their father dies and then comes to get him. When they leave him alone with his father's body he goes to the window to contemplate. When he hears a noise he turns around to see his father sitting up in the bed. He screams and steps backwards and falls out the window to his death. His father see this and falls back on the bed dead. Just a coincidence.... maybe. The current lord swears the curse will die with him. He vows never to marry and never to have children. I couldn't sleep for a week.


Television,during the late 1950's and early 1960's,for those who may not remember it,was in shades of gray with the majority of the weekly variety-musical show,and the situation family comedies that come to mind. Along during that decade of early television,the usual mystery-detective/crime drama series was all over the place,but the one thing that dominated television---the TV western,with "Gunsmoke" and "Wagon Train" ruling the ratings charts. During the year of 1959,most of the television shows that were on the airwaves at that time were westerns,with the usual drama or family situation comedy or children's show that was the order of the day.

In 1959,two astounding anthology series premiered that would change the face of television. One was "The Twilight Zone",which was hosted and narrated by Rod Serling whom also was responsible for writing some of the episodes. "The Twilight Zone" premiered in September of 1959 on CBS-TV. The other anthology series was the underrated and in its own right successful "One Step Beyond",which came in as a mid-season replacement,premiered on January 20,1959 on ABC-TV. Produced at the same time as "The Twilight Zone"(which was well-known and became very popular),the series "One Step Beyond" was a anthology series that fed the nation's growing interest in paranormal suspense in a different way. Hosted by John Newland,he had a much more stronger screen persona. Since the stories Newland introduced were supposedly true,his understated,scholarly approach was more appropriate,and there was no need for cleverly written lines and sardonic wit. The show really introduced audiences to the supernatural and unexplained phenomenon which was really unheard of for late-1950's TV.

The production values on "One Step Beyond" were certainly on par with the average half-hour show of that time,since some of the stories kept the audiences' attention on sheer focus and a superior track record of consistent quality. And since they're were no spaceships,prehistoric monsters,or aliens no lame effects were used here. Created by Merwin Gerard and Produced by Collier Young(whom would later on become one of the producers of "Ironside"),and John Newland,the series ran for three seasons on ABC-TV from January 20,1959 until July 4, 1961 and ran for a half-hour producing 96 episodes,all in classic black and white. Not only did John Newland introduced us to the episode that followed not to mention being a congenial host,the series also employed the talents of performers who invested their material with conviction and authenticity to spare,from long-established character actors to at the time rising stars who were making their mark on their careers,such as: Christopher Lee,George Grizzard,Torin Thatcher,William Shatner, Alfred Ryder,Suzanne Pleshette, Pernell Roberts, Ross Martin, Patrick O'Neal, Elizabeth Montgomery,Edward Binns,Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn,Donald Pleasence,Paul Richards,Dick York,Jack Lord,Louise Fletcher, Barbara Bain,Barbara Eden,Robert Loggia,Claude Akins,and even Warren Beatty. Even Cloris Leachman and Mike Connors and also Peter Graves were guest stars in this series. Writers like Don M. Mankiewicz,along with Charles Beaumont,Larry Marcus and Collier Young.

As for "based on actual events" aspect of the series,"based on actual claims" this was a series(one in these days is rarely seen) were based on something that actually or supposedly took place. Whether you believe these actually occurred or were the product of the supernatural or a more reasonable explanation,is beside the point. Best to judge for yourself. That they could happened,or that someone claimed as much,gives the series an extra shudder or chill factor that "Zone" can't duplicate. And just by watching these episodes were always recounted in intriguing and compelling manner. The was a grand series that nevertheless carved out its own niche as the best of the genre from the golden age of late 50's TV. It was a grand series that lasted for more than three seasons,ending on Independence Day of 1961 after more than 96 episodes.


The Twilight Zone ... The Outer Limits ... But wait. Lets go ... One Step Beyond. This series was, and remains, classic. The episodes, based at least in part on factual stories, shine. The stars? Great names, some caught early on in their careers, with lots of talent. The structural aspects of the various episodes themselves are very well done given the techniques and equipment available at the time. The host, John Newland, had a very benign style all his own. My own experience with this series is, perhaps, a bit different than some others. I understand when it ran originally, and that it was in rerun mode for sometime after that. Funny thing, child of the 60s that I am, and born in the 50s, I NEVER heard of it or saw an episode until March, 2007. History lesson: The 60s? There were TWO, count 'em ... two, primary networks. NBC and CBS. ABC, and One Step Beyond was an ABC program, was still an up and comer with out that many affiliate stations. The area I was raised in, well, we got two TV stations. Right ... NBC and CBS. It was past the mid-sixties, literally, before I knew there was anything else around. And then only because I moved into another section of the country. So One Step Beyond? Never heard of it till I saw it on DVD. And ya know what? I love it. Creepy, huh?


The Waterford, MI gent pretty much nails it. Oddly, he mentions the one episode I have been itching to see (again) for about 30 years, the one with the glider (?) pilot...the concealed deception...and the glider returns...horrors! That's the episode that led me to recently buy the 50-episode DVD set for short money.

I live in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. I wouldn't have seen One Step Beyond were it not for WKBD Ch. 50. The station was part of our basic cable package for several years (and isn't any longer, sadly). God Bless Channel 50. Would never have seen "The Ghoul" w/o TV 50, either or Outer Limits, or all those "Creature Feature" flicks! (I'm 48, feel like 12 here). Those were The Days, IMO...

One Step Beyond was on at 11 p.m., and I missed way more episodes than I saw. I bought the "50 of the Best" DVD on E-Bay and have watched about 46 of them so far with my wife, but the episode I want - as I suspected when I received the 4 discs - isn't among them. That's okay. I'll find it eventually, though I'd like to avoid buy all three seasons separately to do it. Got to have them all. I love that show. It more than holds its own against Twilight Zone, yet the comparison truly is apples-oranges.


I read an in-depth article about this series in either "Filmfax" or "Outre" and it stuck in my mind - I had never heard of the series before. When I saw "The Very Best of One Step Beyond" DVD on sale for about $6 - I thought why not buy it??? I have never regretted it. I don't know whether the standard of television is so abysmal now but I have seen half the episodes and apart from 2 (The Aerialist with Mike "Touch" Connors and Yvette Vickers and "The Ordeal on Locust Street" - just my own personal view) they are all winners. Some of the standouts for me :- "Night of April 14" with Patrick Macnee - about a couple that are going on their honeymoon aboard the "Titanic". The host then talked about a book that had been published in the 1890s about a ship called the "Titan" that could not be sunk

- it was very eerie!!! I must say that all the shows are based on real life occurrences. "The Return of Michael Campion" with Patrick O'Neal - about a man that holidays on a remote island - yet all the locals know him and dislike him!!! That show was a talking point all the afternoon - how could that happen etc. "The Vision" with Pernell Roberts about a group of soldiers in World War 1 that see a strange glow in the sky. I have read of a few different people who saw the same glow in different parts of the world at the very same time. "The Dark Room" with Cloris Leachman - about a strange man that consents to be photographed. "Echo" with Ross Martin, about a man's murderous past that catches up with him. Joanne Linville was in a couple and made an impression. "Delusion" starred the lovely Susanne Pleschette and "The Visitor" has a young and very handsome Warren Beatty.

Highly recommended.


I would be nice if the people who control the rights to the show,

. remaster them and release all 97 episodes to DVD.

. I found 95 of the episodes, but haven't found the "Th Bride" episode and another.

. Outer Limits,

. Twilight Zone,

. One Step Beyond,

. The Inner Sanctum

were the shows to watch for sci-fi, horror on TV as a kid.

. All of the programs, not only entertained but also made you think, dream and look at the world, thinking of the future.


This Would make a excellent remake, just a remarkable story. The acting is wonderful as well as the direction. I first saw this episode in 1995, and it has haunted me ever since. It has created a fascination with ww1 and I now collect ww1 artifacts. This story could easily be adapted in to a feature film or even a mini serious. It states at the end of the story that it is based on actual events. Its hard to believe that it has never been mentioned since. I am currently working on trying to track down actual historical data about the event. This is a powerful story, please keep in mind the time and,low budget this was filmed in. Wish me luck on my research. Scott


I need to know what the name of the OSB episode (thought it may have been a T Zone one) where a person visits an old flea market and happens upon a pair of cheetah glasses. They buy them and try them on when they get home and become able to hear what people are really thinking, i.e. they can read other people's minds. Various situations transpire where the glasses pass from one person and situation to another. Each one is different and each one experiences a death because of it (as I remember from seeing this one when I was a child.) Does anyone out there know is this indeed was OSB, or another Sci-Fi TV series title? Also, if anyone knows where this can be purchased for a reasonable price, please let me know.


is those episodes real or false.They seem to be so,well balanced.That i feel that.There has to be some truth to at least most of those great episodes.If there is truth to any of those,great shows.Is there any body a live to confirm this.Very curious to know. Is there any one out there,who has information on this.Is the host of the show still alive.Where do i find more episodes of this wonderful show.Is there a DVD collection out there.Is there ever going to be,another series like this one.Since that show was on i have never gotten a feeling of just wanting more,and more out of a show.So i hope.That there will be a show like that in the near future.That could give the same feelings that this show did.


Plots like this have been done before; and done better in some films, but that doesn't stop Burt Kennedy's little known thriller 'Wolf Lake' from being a very well done and constantly intriguing little thriller. The film is not perfect; there are pacing problems and a series of annoying/confusing flashbacks that break up the narrative; but it also features some strong characters and an interesting plot line with some ideas that actually do hold some weight. The film takes in themes of patriotism, vigilantism and vengeance, and fuses it with a thriller narrative. The base of the plot is very simple and centres on a wood cabin by the side of a lake known as 'Wolf Lake'. A group of war veterans turn up for a week of shooting, drinking etc, but find the cabin being looked after by a young man named David and his girlfriend. One of the group discovers that David is a war deserter and warns him that all hell will break loose if the leader of the group were to find out about it. He then goes and tells the leader (?), and all hell breaks loose.

The film stars Rod Steiger and the actor gives a real powerhouse performance and is definitely the best thing about the film. His character is the most complex in the film; and even though his actions are extreme, they are justified and Steiger manages to make the role believable; which is testament to his acting talent. The film is rather slow to start although this time is used well in building up the plot line and characters. We get a good impression of the central players early on and this makes the film more involving by the time we get to the inevitable conclusion. The location used is excellent in that it creates a real feeling of loneliness for the central characters; they really are out in the middle of nowhere with no chance of help coming for them. The central plot and the problem between the two main characters are open for debate, and also give the audience plenty to think about. Overall, while this film does have some flaws; it's still an excellent thriller and it's very unfair that this is so little known! See it if you get the chance.


Ex-commander Steiger and three of his army buddies go to Canada for a little duck hunting.Steiger,grieving for his son lost in the Vietnam War, gets ballistic when he finds out that Huffman,who's running the camp,is a deserter.A violent shootout occurs as Steiger and his friends go after Huffman and his girlfriend Mattson with tragic results."Wolf Lake" plays like an exciting mix of "Deliverance","Straw Dogs" and "Open Season".It's a tense and extremely well-acted survival thriller with some great scenes of violence.The shootout begins after the rape of Huffman's girlfriend.So if you are a fan of survival cinema you can't miss "Wolf Lake".It's a crying shame that such obscure Canadian movies are still unavailable on DVD.9 out of 10.


A couple of middle aged war buddies led by Charlie arrive at Wolf Lake for their annual hunting trip, but the guy they were suppose to meet isn't there, but instead there's a young man, David and his girlfriend who are care-taking the resort. When Charlie finds out David was a deserter in the Vietnam War. Hate builds up within, as he lost his son in Vietnam and he takes it upon himself to hand out the punishment for fleeing his commitments.

If there's a sorely under-valued and truly forgotten pearler, "Wolf Lake" is one of those sleepers that should have a wider audience. It might be far from perfect, as the project has some teetering problems, but for most part it's an adeptly crafted and hauntingly cerebral picture. The problem area mostly arose from the oddly placed flash forward sequences that cut in and out within the narrative. This aspect certainly spoiled what's about to come and clouded the story with confusion. Feels like we the viewer are missing out on details. Actually it begins with the ending, so it's not terribly surprising in the final outcome. But reading a fellow user's review on the flick, it has made interested in seeing the supposed re-edited "The Honor Guard". As the choppy editing that was worked in was the only thing that dampened the film's edge.

Despite knowing what was going to happen, Burt Kennedy's sedately crisp direction was a ticking time bomb waiting to explode with the burning tension and scathing actions coming to the forefront in the closing half. Building up to this riveting game of cat and mouse was made possible by a studiously pressure filled script and a sensationally barnstorming lead turn by Rod Steiger. He really does get into his relentlessly, hot-headed character, but its hard to really despise him as the torment really shows in his face and we watch as it tears him apart. Whenever he and David Huffman's character (David) share the screen watch how intensely gripping their confrontations become and how they feed the film's fire. It's a conflict of two generations just waiting to crack over their opinions of the changing face of America. The bleakly threatening atmosphere spun out from the beautiful lakeside backdrop and isolated woodlands was made to great use and a stirring music score truly does hold a lethal sting in its rhythm. All the rich performances are well grounded and focused. David Huffman as the placid-minded young man David is convincing and a lovely Robin Mattson plays hapless Linda. Jerry Hardin superbly plays the concerned and always consciousness Wilbur. His character is the little voice that Charlie would here if something he was doing didn't sit to well. Richard Herd and Paul Mantee do well in their parts. If your expecting a rough revenge / survival exploitation vehicle amongst a familiar setting. Its starts off with a lot innuendo and then some disturbing moments (like rape) show up. There's way more too it and gladly so. Kennedy fleshes out the situation with a diverse range of traits fusing together with excellent suspense and convicted performances.

A couple hiccups can't stop this stimulating potboiler from deserving to be picked out of obscurity. Admirers of Steiger or Kennedy shouldn't miss out on this one. Recommended.


I wasn't expecting anything new or spectacular. I wasn' blown away by the tv-film itself, but more so by the potentiality of the program to be a series. I agree with a previous post that with the mind-numbing so-called 'reality tv' horse crap playing, a show like the example here could've been a refreshing change of pace.

Jeff Goldblum's portrayal of Ben, an experienced foreign correspondent thrown into the lawless and chaotic world of war torn countries in search for the truth, was quite fascinating. Although it isn't quite new as far as composition is concerned, for tv it works quite impressively.

I can't really imagine any other actor capable of such restrain from being overtly expressive. His reserve seems very accurate and is reminiscent of Dan Rather and Nic Robertson (CNN).

Had this film been directed by Steven Soderbergh, a probability very slim for tv productions, it would have been very fascinating. I see a very interesting neo-realism treatment to the direction, something à la Traffic.

Unfortunately, this show just isn't what it could've been. I believe, aside from the obvious plot holes, the useless subplot which for the shortness of the film's length seem to leave too many questions unanswered. A doubtful supporting cast, which appear only to count on Jeff to support them in such a way it seems forced, the show aimed at greatness, but fell short.

I believe, a reason for such a miss perhaps was using a theme that is a bit too actual. Utilizing al Qaeda as an actual reference, the 9-11 slaughter and Usamah bin Laden himself appears only a bit too disrespectful for the memory of the very unfortunate victims of terrorism. Specially so soon after the events themselves.

Basically, this feature seems more or less like an extended pilot of a terrific show with great prospects, but falls short as far as a film is concerned.


When I saw this pilot episode of what was supposed to be a TV series, I was quite excited about it. The story was daring and original, considering the usual high-tech kitsch that usually air on broadcast TV ("24", "CSI" and the likes). This show felt different - in a way it felt real, like it had meat on its bones. It was more than just stories of people and the outlandish things that happen to them - it dealt with ideas and got one thinking. War Stories talked about the grittiest, truest and maybe noblest side of journalism: war correspondents. This was a show that seemed to chose story lines mirroring reality, even if that reality felt a bit uncomfortable to acknowledge. Finally, I thought, a series that tries to be more than pointless thrills and suspense. The series was even mentioned by Newsweek magazine for its originality and provocative subject. Unfortunately, by next week the show was cancelled. I guess, since the show was too daring and didn't fit a regular "format", the sponsors threw their weight around, and instead of more episodes of War Stories we got more mind-numbing sitcoms, reality shows, and cheesy thrillers. God forbid we see something controversial that expresses a different point of view, or gets us thinking. Still, I am hoping the producers haven't given up on this one yet...


Is it what it seems? The war I mean. Wherever we live, the information which reaches us is gathered by human beings, who are influenced day in and out. And what reaches us depends on the few people who are on the field, gathering the data, and writing conclusions. And it gets real difficult for them, when they're influenced by enemy and allies, who all try to get advantage. In recent times, we've had the possibility to learn the difference in what is told in the US, and what is told in Europe, not to mention the North-African region. At times, you'd wonder if those reports handle about the same war! Or should we refrain from using the term report and say Stories instead... War stories handles just about that. Ben Dansmore (Jeff Goldblum) is a war-zone reporter, who recently lost his regular photographer, and "gets saddled up" with a rookie, Nora Stone (Lake Bell). They, due to a series of actions get a different scope on a bombing, which opens a few doors on the other side of the trenches. Someone once said:" In war and love, anything is allowed" so expect everything, when they pursue their quest for "their truth", because there is no simple truth, except : "any war is dirty, even the clean ones". Some people get the feeling that the US government is held responsible, but seem to forget that the movie CLEARLY shows the dirty ways from the other side too , and above all, what is questioned most: "The War Stories"


First off, Jeff Goldblum is just awesome. Everything I've seen him in has been good, up to and including "The Race for the Double Helix." That being said, "War Stories" is just plain good. Good may in fact be an understatement. Sure, it isn't big on fleshing out, but it's a two hour telefilm, and like most movies, there isn't the time. We get a bit of backstory on the major characters, but the focus is more on the events that take place and how they affect the characters than understanding what makes the characters tick.

Goldblum was the only member of the cast I recognized, but that isn't to say the others were bad. The actress who played opposite Goldblum, Lake Bell as Nora, I believe, was quite good, as were the other reporters. It was dramatic in parts, there was action, and I actually was totally uncertain of the outcome.

Overall, "War Stories" kicked ass. It actually manages to weave a web of confusion together into a coherant, interesting story. It's one of the best made-for-tv movies I've seen in the past few years. It doesn't try to knock you over the head with a message, and it doesn't overplay any sort of 9/11 in an attempt to get pity viewership or something like that. It's just plain good.


This movie intrigued me right form the start because it's an american movie about Afghanistan. Also, the fact that it is about the mass media and war coverage was also pretty interesting. The movie's two main characters are Goldblum playing a sort of stereotypical ani-establishment type, and Lake Bell as his newbie photographer.

The good thing about this is that it does show how much personal preferences shape the stories that make it to the headlines. One character at one point justifies his stance with the words "maybe I just love my country", proving that he is not being impartial, and that we cannot truly expect impartiality from the media.

The movie goes back and forth between whether the US government is playing games or not and what a reporters duty is and whether or not reporters are impartial. In the end it is shown that the reports will give the story. But this isn't completely accurate given that many reporters are refraining from "asking the tough question" because they feel it would be unpatriotic to do so.

The movie left me feeling a little unsatisfied but overall it is in itself (i think) relatively unbiased, showing all types of reporters and also things that may or may not be motivating the US government.


This "telefilm" starring Jeff Goldblum is simply amazing. The acting (even among the supporting cast) is top-notch, and the realism of the battlefield and of the characters make "War Stories" even more impressive. At a uncertain time such as we're living in now, it's refreshing to see a program take a chance and make us think about journalistic integrity, what are government is doing, and whether or not they're right in doing what they do.

However, to give NBC the credit I think is misleading. It's easy to see that this "telefilm" was meant as a pilot. "War Stories" was originally intended to be a series, but NBC chickened out when they thought it was "too risky" to make a program about real life issues and make the audience think for more than 2 seconds. However, the pilot was already made, so "might as well" just air it.

Coulda been a good show. Shoulda been a good show. Woulda been a good show...


This could be a really good show if they ease back on the sex and the long posses. Parts of the show (movie) had me thinking "Oh my God" while other times, I got up to clean out the litter boxes. The acting was okay. No character had me feeling the fear or passion. The story line was okay, but they tried to put in too much in too short of time. They need to really build up the characters. If it makes it to prime-time TV I will give it a go.


Had no idea just how I was going to enjoy this film and quickly found myself glued to the TV where these Foreign Press correspondences take photos among and around the people in Uzbekistani and dealing with Muslin rebel forces and bullets flying over their heads. Jeff Goldblum (Ben Donsmore) experiences his partner being killed and his replacement is Lake Bell, (Nora Stone) who makes all kinds of mistakes with her photos and Ben is ready to get rid of her and send her back to the States. This film has many twists and turns and there is plenty of romance and love making especially with Louise Lombard,(Gayle Phalan) who seems to jump from one bedroom to another through out the entire film. This film will appeal to almost anyone who likes action and also a few female actors who add some sex appeal.


Why can't TV make better movies? No wonder the the big 4 networks lose viewers to TBS, HBO, and A&E. Their movies entertain, have originality to them, and have fresher writing. Another leftwing the US government is bad conspiracy movie where the media is the only true hero. This makes me sick, because I wonder how many times the media has destroyed careers, caused riots, ruin investigations, and caused deaths by unethical reporters. We need a media, but some of these tv movies are like a commercial for the nightly news. Conspiracy movie of the big bad gov and CIA have been around for 30 years; they need a new angle. After some of these crazy government conspiracy theories, people have become leery of these stories. The same formula, an Alan Alda type hero, a sex interested for ratings, a stupid Frank Burns right wing guy who does something stupid and gets killed, and as always CIA plot, everyone has to be good looking, idealistic, and all the world's problems simply can be blamed on the US and the government they support etc etc etc... Nothing new here, they even try to do the Vietnam flashback imagery, with that same Stones song used in everyone of these movies. War dirty, and evil nothing new there, except they get a big name b actor,Goldblum, to make you waste your time watching this crap. I think the ending left little for the viewer. 3/10


Wow. Shoot 'Em Up is exactly what it claims to be. An action movie. Balls to the wall, no holds barred, but nothing more. And that's exactly what you get. Don't go expecting high art...SEU doesn't take itself seriously enough for that. But that's exactly what makes it work. It KNOWS it's over the top, and doesn't try to hide it. Clive Owen's Smith character is the Bugs Bunny to Paul Giamatti's Hurtz Elmer Fudd. The film takes the best cartoon elements, makes them flesh, and still kicks in that over the top craziness. Bad puns that are so bad they're good, action sequences that there just for the sake of having an action sequence, and the wildest sex scene ever...it's amazing. It's the funniest, coolest, most amazing mix of stunts, bad one liners and paper think plot lines.

You get everything you expect from Shoot 'Em Up...and it's all great.


I rated this movie a 10 in the context of other action movies; it's nowhere near a 10 when compared to classics like Casablanca, but in it's genre, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do.

Clive Owen stars as "Smith" a guy with a past (that's slowly revealed during the crazy gun fights) who shows up as a knight in shining armor to a lady who is about to pop a baby and is being chased by baddies, headed up by Paul Giamatti. After he rescues the kid, he links back up with an old flame, DQ, played by Monica Bellucci. The movie starts out with a bang, quite literally and doesn't settle down the entire time. There's a plot somewhere in the movie, but if you think too hard, it'll disappear in a puff of logic.

That being said, the gunfights and car chases are stellar. They are lots of fun, with ridiculous things going on the entire time. Just suspend your reason & logic, strap into your theater seat and enjoy the ride.

Michael Davis spoke before the preview and said he was an action movie buff since the beginning and made the movie he wanted to make. As an action movie fan, I thank him!


Shoot Em' Up

Are you tired of all those heartless, senseless, generic and cliché, action-driven Hollywood films? That honor style and blood over character and plot? Well then I have news for you: don't go see "Shoot Em' Up".

But it's a shame that you won't. The film whose trailer I pointed to and said 'that's what film-making has come to these days; all attitude and no heart', turns out to be the most fun and riotous satire I've seen in a long time. "Shoot Em' Up"--a relentless, simultaneously energizing and hilarious movie--is a surprisingly smart confection. As conceived by writer-director Mike Davis its an over-the-top send-up of every action film ever made; a wink and a nod (as well as a parody of) to the bloody overkill of "Die Hard" and "Rambo", the gleeful excitement and charm of "Indiana Jones", the cornball abandon of "James Bond", the who cares of "North by Northwest", the heroic terseness and ease of "Bourne", the ultra-stylized and preposterous overdrive of "The Matrix" or anything ever made by John Woo (particularly a love for "Hard-Boiled"), and even in one scene the splendid lunacy of "Raising Arizona".

The whole project, through controlled chaos and witty abandon, is made as a single, continuous in-joke. As in most films that take themselves too seriously, Clive Owen's hero (enigmatically titled Mr. Smith) quite literally never stops shooting. He shoots while having sex, he shoots while in the middle of free-fall, he shoots the umbilical cord off of a baby, he shoots with his fingers broken. Davis takes over-the-top to a whole new level; poking fun at action movies by taking their ridiculousness to its brinking point.

Everything is done with an intentional preposterousness. For no reason Smith takes the baby of a dead woman (whom he helped deliver...in a frenetic shootout nonetheless) and decides to protect the infant from Paul Giamatti (dropping his nice-guy smugness, and superbly playing his diabolical villain with maniacal glee) and his army of goonish gunmen (why are they even after it?). For no reason, Smith just happens to be the world's greatest gunslinger (he doesn't miss; he doesn't break a sweat...in fact the whole movie Owen plays Smith as the ultimate joke: with a straight face. Same expression for killing, sex, talking, anything).

The enigmatic coincidence of it all is only part of the film's joy (and when it begins to explain some its elements, that's where it goes wrong). Mostly its about the cartoonish, endlessly inventive shootouts; each staged with more ludicrous precision than the last. Its both funny and exceptionally filmed; the dialogue another homage to the stupidity of action films (among Smith's witty remarks: "Eat your vegetables" he laments after impaling a man with a carrot).

And what is an action film without (besides a huge body count; a beautiful woman who does no more than look hot and talk sexy--kudos to Monica Bellucci) quirks for its hero? Smith is all caricature with a few cartoony peeves. For one he hates a lot of things (including bad drivers), but more importantly he has a fondness for carrots ("they make your eyesight better" he growls); he even turns them into weapons.

"Shoot Em' Up" does all that it can to be every kind of action-movie. And it succeeds; staging endless fight after fight in every way imaginable, never repeating itself and quite literally ending with a bang. 9/10

"I hate ponytails. They don't make you look hip, young or cool"- Shoot 'Em Up


Think about the title of the movie, because if you don't like that than just stay home. This movie lives up to its name in a fresh, fun and humorous way. Clive Owen is great as Mr. Smith, the coolest action hero I have seen in a long time. Paul Giammatti is witty and surprisingly enjoyable to watch as the bad guy. If you take this film too serious than you will not like it. Yes, it is a ridiculous film filled with non-stop action that would never be humanly possible, babies being thrown around but yet staying protected by the humorous Mr. Smith. This film was so fun and yes over the top, but if you expect anything more you probably will be disappointed. The violence was very extravagant, but what else did you expect from this title? It is the sort of violence that doesn't really bother you in a film. It's flashy and well, it's entertainment. Just like this movie, it was entertaining and I loved it.


I wasn't really sure what to make of this movie before I went to the advanced screening. I heard from a friend of mine at the Chicago Tribune (she's female, and you'll see why that matters in a second) and she said, "It was so stupid! It was like, BANG BANG BANG, EXPLETIVE EXPLETIVE EXPLETIVE, BANG BANG BANG! Then gallons of blood and we move on." For some reason, the little boy in me that loved the scene in Predator where all of the soldiers shoot at open woods for a complete minute, got very excited. She wasn't kidding, either, that's just what this movie was. Don't worry about the plot, it's not really a concern. Don't worry about the script either, the lines are so over the top and shallow that you know a man wrote this script without allowing anyone to comment on it.

At the same time, this movie is just plain fun. You will find yourself laughing from the moment the movie starts to the ending (which you won't be glancing at your watch while waiting for). There are funny lines, funny situations, and stuff that is so impossible in the real world that you can't help but chuckle. Various moments during the film, I found myself applauding along with the audience, maybe not for the film, but for how writer/director Michael Davis got our hero out of another situation.

The directing, as opposed to the writing, was done very well, especially for a movie like this. If you take the directing too seriously, the script won't work, which is probably why Michael Davis did both. Clive Owen delivers another strong performance, adapting to the cheesy script and outrageous events like a participant in a prank or gag. Monica Bellucci plays the most serious role in the film, and still takes to mocking her life and situation in this movie like the rest of them. My favorite character would still have to be the sly Paul Giamatti, who is given some pretty crazy situations himself but they are coupled with the only lines of any intelligence (or longer than about four words).

By the end of this movie, I was having a lot of fun watching a plot unfold that I didn't really care about. That doesn't deter the film, though, because it's kind of like a stunt show, you're not really concerned with the story. I loved it and, apparently, so did most of the audience. It really reminded me of seeing, well, a live action movie that was more like a video game (we even have coordinated colors for the costumes of the "bad guys" in the various "levels"). I'd like to use this film as an example to my (former) favorite critic Roger Ebert as a perfect example of how video games can be construed in the same light as video games, because Roger, this is clearly a movie made by a large video game fan.


In this deliriously over-the-top masterpiece of outrageously clever mayhem, star Clive Owen is an unstoppable good-guy gunman who is given to asking the question "you know what I hate?" immediately before letting all hell break loose.

You know what I hate? Dishonest, hypocritical reviewers like the one sitting two seats away from me at the "Shoot 'Em Up" screening I attended. Although he made amused grunts and other appreciative noises during the deliciously inventive stunts, laughed out loud at the jokes, gasped and groaned at all the right gasp-and-groan-worthy places, and generally appeared to be having a grand old time, he said afterward that he didn't like the movie.

What the hell is wrong with critics like that? Are they afraid the art-house crowd won't take them seriously if they express appreciation for a film in which a newborn's umbilical cord is cut with a gunshot, or a thug gets killed by having a carrot shoved in his mouth and out the back of his head? What, you mean Bergman or Antonioni never filmed a lactating hooker tearing out a ring from a Marilyn Manson lookalike's "personal area" to convince him to talk?

Ahem.

Although the posters for "Shoot 'Em Up" resemble Frank Miller comic-book drawings come to life, the actual movie has more in common with the work of another comic-book great: Garth Ennis, writer of such jaw-droppingly hyper-violent heroes as Marvel's the Punisher. (Although the awful 2004 "Punisher" movie included some supporting characters and plot points that originated with Ennis, it lacked anything resembling his very dark yet fiercely entertaining style. The guy definitely has a way of making vigilantes and their dangerous toys fascinating.)

Owen plays Mr. Smith -- and that's probably not his real name -- a guy who is simply waiting for a bus when he gets drawn into one of the wildest, most crazy-violent action opening scenes of all time. By the time the bullets stop flying, Smith is on the run with a complete stranger's targeted-for-death baby and one hell of a lot of questions.

Smith enlists a kinky "got milk" hooker (Monica Bellucci) to wet-nurse the infant. Despite some tough talk, she turns out to be more placidly sensual and maternal than kick-ass tomboy, which makes for a nice change in this kind of movie.

Meanwhile, a sadistically evil genius appropriately named Hertz (Paul Giamatti) dogs their trail with a never-ending army of hired killers and, yes, a couple of dogs. Giamatti scores as this badass with brains, who is shocked and hilariously furious about how Smith & Company keep managing to survive. "Do we suck this bad," he says at one point, "or is this guy really that good?"

Writer/director Michael Davis has loaded the film with one unforgettably imaginative image after another: spent shell casings bouncing off a pregnant woman's stomach, a gun dropping in an unflushed toilet, a hand with bullets between the fingers shoved into a fireplace as an improvised weapon. There are showdowns, standoffs, car chases, airborne gun battles and even a shootout in a firearms factory.

Best of all, the screenplay manages to both glorify in and yet subvert some of the things you'll be expecting. For example, it's a mega-body-count, blizzard-of-bullets barrage that's actually a plea for gun control at heart. Seriously. Also, although it has scenes referencing bits from movies as diverse as "Lost Highway," "The Transporter" and even "Raising Arizona" (how's that for range?), it still feels fresh and original.

And there's one perfectly done little scene that's so poignant you may actually find yourself tearing up. Don't worry, though -- a hail of gunfire follows very shortly thereafter. Heck, a hail of gunfire follows shortly after EVERYTHING in this movie, usually including other hails of gunfire!

I can't wait to see what relative newcomer Michael Davis does for his next movie, but it will be hard for him to top this one. "Shoot 'Em Up" is a flat-out joy to watch. When it was over, the first thing I said was, "I want to see this movie again RIGHT NOW!" It's that good!


As I stated above, this movie is a fun ride. The script was probably written by a 13 year old kid who plays a lot of video games, but that's why it's great. You can just kick back, turn your brain off for 80 minutes, and enjoy. It is the ultimate guy movie. And for the one liners: as cheesy and lame as you could ask for. Shoot Em Up was made to entertain the 20 something action junkie, so if you aren't one, you will no doubt hate this flick. But for the rest of us, who all have that 13 year old immature video gamer still inside, you gotta see it. I think Clive Owen might be the first true action star Hollywood has had in a long time. One other enjoyable feature: great soundtrack. Shootout scene with Motorhead's "Ace of Spades" in the background: you can't ask for anything better. I give Shoot Em Up 8 out of 10.


People who rate this movie poorly obviously do not realize that it is a comedy. If you go into it hoping for awesome action and realistic events, prepare to be disappointed. The entire movie is just completely ridiculous action sequences that not only would never happen but never COULD happen in any possible way. It's as if someone took every action scene that got cut from other action movies for being too outrageous or physically impossible and jammed them all into one movie. That is what makes it so funny! There were scenes with no dialogue that had me rolling with laughter. There aren't any dull moments either with someone getting shot pretty much every 10 seconds. The movie was not what I was expecting, but ended up SO much better. It's just plain fun!


I had been looking forward to this movie for months, so walking in, I had somewhat high expectations. Walking out, I felt very satisfied and that I had gotten more than my money's worth.

You are going to be hard-pressed to find a movie more over the top than Shoot 'Em Up. What Michael Davis does here is take every action movie cliché (i.e. firing two guns while jumping through the air, shooting guns out of speeding cars, etc.) and takes it to a whole new level entirely. It works namely because the violence here is just so creative. Sure, it defies all logic most of the time, but I was laughing and having a rip-roaring time throughout.

Clive Owen is perfectly cast as the carrot-chomping, gun-toting smart aleck hero and has no shortage of cheesy puns (that score big laughs). The rest of the cast does well, but really, it's Clive's show.

The "plot" is pretty much non-existent other than about a half dozen scenes of slightly forced dialogue. The purpose behind these scenes is more to give the audience a couple of minutes to catch it's collective breath between action scenes than it is to develop an actual story. And really, if you went to this movie expecting an in-depth character drama, you picked the wrong film.

At a little under an hour and a half, Shoot 'Em Up successfully delivers a perfect dosage of action, guns and puns without overstaying it's welcome. I'll be sure to see it at least a couple more times while it is still in theaters.

Plus, it has Mötley Crüe's, "Kickstart my Heart". What more could you ask for?


Some of the comments left by people on here show just how clueless movie goers can be. As if you can't tell that there's a slight tongue-in-cheek feel to the movie. Doesn't the stupidly high kill count or OTT methods used to kill people make that obvious to you? Does a movie with the title "Shoot em up" sound like a serious piece of work? Come on some of you just need to relax and use your brains a little.

I haven't much to say on the movie itself since its ones of those "entertained me but probably won't buy the DVD" films I so often see in cinemas. Acting was good, action was good, plot was OK. Go see it. If you love it - great, if you don't - oh well. It really is one of those kind of movies. Just remember not expect a serious film reminiscent of James Bond or Die Hard, OK?.


SHOOT 'EM UP is well named: this is a whompingly good action movie that is as much parody of its genre as it is a good story. It never for a moment takes itself seriously and it is played by a strong cast of top-drawer actors having a terrific time. Writer/director Michael Davis has found his niche and let's hope their will be more dark comedies that are as much fun to watch as this one.

The story is negligible: lone man Smith (Clive Owen at his best) observes a pregnant woman in chased distress, delivers her baby, then finishes off the huge gang of bad guys who are in pursuit, taking the newborn boy to transient safety. Smith finds a lactating prostitute Donna (beautiful Monica Bellucci), takes her from her business of kinky sex and makes her the baby's surrogate mother. A smarmy gangster Hertz (Paul Giamatti in another career forming role), connected to an illicit arms manufacturer Hammerson (Stephen McHattie), is in pursuit of both Smith and the baby for reasons that are finally disclosed: the baby is part of a ring of potential bone marrow donors for an important Senator. The ending is, well, an ending. But it is the getting there that is all the fun.

The dialog is peppered with hilarious one-liners that have a real edge and the methods of the endless killings include several using the carrot that Smith keeps at hand as a weapon. The shootings are fast and impossible but actually hilarious in the choreography. Clive Owen plays the role straight, with a real gift for humor as well as action. Paul Giamatti is a sinister delight and able to match Owens one-liner for one-liner. Monica Bellucci makes her impossible role credible and as always is gorgeous to look at! This is a fast paced, finely written and acted parody - definitely deserving of the comic book title! Grady Harp