This movie is very original in context and quite touching. The characters are all important to the film, by that I mean there are no "fluff" characters... except for the one that is "fluff" on purpose but that is obvious. Steve and his crew are surprising fun to watch throughout the adventure. The camera work in this film makes it seem realistic. More like you're watching a play from the front row than looking at a film screen. One particular scene moves from set to set without a cut away, seeming impossible unless the sets were actually built on top of each other like and actual boats rooms. By the time the movie was over I felt a strange connection to Zizzou and his crew.


This film, directed by New World Pictures alumnus Jonathan Kaplan and starring cult favorite Aimee Graham, is part of the "Rebel Highway" series of remakes of 1950s juvenile-delinquent films.

For what was basically a chance for the filmmakers to have fun, _Reform School Girl_ is quite watchable. There are the allusions to McCarthyism characteristic of the "Rebel Highway" series (and a well-done general 50s ambiance), and the usual array of interesting types we meet in women-in-prison films. This one is nowhere near as graphic as a typical entry in that genre, but there is one lesbian love scene that is strikingly filmed and acted, suprisingly graphic for such young-looking actresses, and really kind of a tonal shift from the rest of the film. Unfortunately, the film never really resolves the lesbian relationship.

The only time I really cringed was the scene where Donna (Aimee Graham) started dancing and singing with the mop, and the camera began moving around and getting in the faces of the onlookers. This was a totally ridiculous scene (but I guess it's hard to pad these things out to 80 minutes).

Graham is stellar in the title role, a girl who has had to deal with abuse and, while in reform school, awakens to more positive sexual experiences. I really wish Hollywood would take more notice of her.


this is a must see for Aimee graham fans. i think it's one of her better roles, as she does remarkably well with this made for Cinemax movie. good supporting cast including Matt Le blanc in a cameo role. i wondered when they would get around to putting this one on DVD. congrats to Buena Vista. as for her gift of running, she had a lot to run from, including an abusive father and a lame boyfriend. running can be very therapeutic and can also imply a sense of urgency as a medium to escape the predicaments of life one has been dealt.

Cinematography is well done, at least the TV version that i copied off Cinamax one night. i think i wore that one out. it was released in VHS in other countries including England and Germany, but i believe this future release(April 2005), will be the first time it will be readily available in the U.S..


You might expect a made-for-TV remake of a 1950's exploitation flick to be a camp spoof but instead it turns out to be a rather enjoyable, if simplistic, prison movie.

The tone is little uneven, with some of the older actors playing up the melodrama while the younger cast members take it all seriously, but the result is an enjoyable genre romp. Pre-Friends Matt LeBlanc plays the bad-boy teen Vince who leads innocent schoolgirl Donna (Aimee Graham) astray and gives an insight to how his career might have developed if he hadn't been forever entwined with the character of Joey. The most surprising aspect is the tender lesbian love scene between Donna and Carmen (Teresa DiSpina). Fairly explicit and very erotic it is the outstanding scene in the film and totally unexpected in a US TV drama.

It's is true to say to say that the story is fairly shallow and trite but this is pulp fiction not Shakespeare and the film is never less than entertaining. This review is based on the version aired on UK television with a running time of around 6 minutes less than the 85 minutes shown at IMDb.


I just wanted to be a nice guy and find something that I could send to PH to help her out during her incarceration. Well, this one isn't it. It is just so bad on so many levels that it was painful to watch.

Aimee Graham hooks up with a loser - It's Joey from Friends! Well, it is Matt LeBlanc before he became the lovable Joey. He is kind of of Fonzi character driving fast in stolen cars while he tokes constantly. He kill someone and guess who goes to jail - Donna (Graham).

This is where it really gets bad. She is in jail for what appears to be months before we get a girl on girl hookup (with Teresa DiSpina) and a shower scene. What's up with that? We get food fights in the mess hall and dancing with a mop, but we have to wait until the movie is almost over before a shower scene? At least there wasn't some Pat Ast Matron, but we sure could have used Sybil Danning as the Warden.


This has got to be the most terrible film ever committed to celluloid, and I watch Mystery Science Theater 3000. I just couldn't see the point in any of it as it appears to be a series of unconnected scenes badly put together. Girl gets sent to reform school, but she's innocent, there we find the usual prison stereotypes, rough girl, quiet girl etc. She then finds she has a gift for running. So what?? Its a pitiful film in which you can honestly, and I mean honestly, spot what's coming. Leery guidance counselor?? Check. Unnecessary lesbian scene?? Check. Worst Ending EVER?? Check. I won't spoil it but its awful and completely negates the rest of the film. I spent three days telling everyone I saw just how bad it was, I now have no friends thanks to this film. The very worst part comes right at the end when, over the credits, it reads out what happens to the sad reprobates with each one, without fail, going on to something far better. And what the hell was Matt LeBlanc doing in this movie?????


A great romantic thriller with wonderful characters. Mark Harmon shines as a private detective more at ease in a library than carrying a gun. Mimi Rogers is brilliant as the mysterious grieving widow and the film is extremely well made with a catchy Jazz music score and beautiful photography. A must-see.


A wonderfully filmed, deliciously scored and brilliantly acted contemporary thriller. Mark Harmon plays a private eye the likes of which hasn't been seen often and Mimi Rogers is perfect as the woman with the missing husband who hires him. The wonderful direction of Ivan Passer makes this a classic in its own right.


Mark Harmon plays a detective who doesn't carry a gun, more at ease sifting through the newspaper collection of the library than in a gun battle.

The story and direction are equally compelling and a masterful cast and great music score make this movie an undiscovered gem of a detective story.


Starting with a wonderful screenplay full of interesting characters, Ivan Passer crafted an amazing film. The performances are top notch as is the music and all the elements of this wonderful film. Mark Harmon and Mimi Rogers shine in two of the best parts they ever got to play.


Fourth Story is a film that bears repeated viewings with ease.

The actors are perfectly cast and have an easy chemistry with each other (and not just Mark Harmon and Mimi Rogers - all the actors are perfectly cast from the biggest to the smallest part!) while the script is a model of clarity and fun that most writers would do well to emulate.

The music score is a joy and works like gangbusters.

It makes you wonder why most directors think of Jazz as a fad when it can be made to work so well in so many settings.

Overall it is a very worthy film that I can only hope will have a DVD release very soon.


At times a little slow, but an above average TV drama with thrills and suspense. This psychological passage is about a private eye(Mark Harmon) and the woman(Mimi Rogers) who hires him to find her missing husband(Cliff De Young). Very watchable and personally I liked this a whole lot better than PROOF OF LIFE(2000)which is more or less the same story. Harmon is cool without trying to be macho. Miss Rogers is flawless and to die for. In support: M.Emmet Walsh, Paul Gleason and Michael Boatman.


I'm a BBCminiseries-aholic. I can watch even the most tedious efforts from the 70s and find them entertaining enough to watch several times. So it is no surprise that I like this. For my enjoyment, the biggest stumbling block of this miniseries is the casting of Victoria. To be fair, Victoria Hamilton (Victoria) is an actress I just don't care for. I've seen her in several things, and I just don't connect with her screen presence. She is a fine actress, always emotionally "present," but I do feel that I see the same 3 emotions over and over  happy, sad, fussy. She is omnipresent through this piece, so there you have it. She is lovely as the coming-of-age Victoria, but the biggest problem here is that she is not believable playing much over the age of 25.

This is a film that would have benefited immensely by double casting the leads/ breaking half way through to change them to older actors. (And one horrible mistake is opening and closing the film with an elderly wheelchair-bound Victoria  played by another actress  whose eyes are bright blue, and Hamilton's are brown.) Hamilton simply does not grow up enough, despite costumes and makeup.

Jonathan Firth (Albert) also suffers from the various age make-ups, fares much better, and brings more complexity to his role. He is always exceptional, and his role here is sympathetic, even when behaving badly, but he does look as if he had just finished crying during a lot of this film a bad allergy season, perhaps? He also does not make the transition to age believably.

Because of this, what makes this piece tick, run, and flow is the exquisite supporting cast. This is always the case with these BBC/A&E productions, and it may be what is really their core secret. People a town with geniuses, and any idiot can run the place. Well, that is what they do with their actors. Penelope Wilton has the standout performance as a desperate, emotional, miscalculating Queen Mum. David Suchet is simply perfect, and so far from Poirot you need to remind yourself that this is the same actor. Diana Rigg and Nigel Hawthorne also lend gravitas to production.

This production also features some really beautiful castle/historic locations, but this one is probably only for those who are addicted to the anglo-miniseries. (Almost exclusively indoor and talky, so boys will probably feel as pent up and useless as Albert did.)


I am a HUGE fan of A&E originals, as well as Masterpiece Theatre. Two of my favorite movies of all time are "Pride and Prejudice" (1995), and "Wives and Daughters". I am now adding "Victoria and Albert" to my list of all time favorites. This movie was absolutely stunning! And, what's even more amazing is that, unlike the previous favorites I mentioned, "Victoria and Albert" is a TRUE story! As soon as I finished watching it, I immediately went online to try to find more information on Victoria and Albert, family photos, excerpts from their diaries, etc. I had always thought of Queen Victoria as a women of 75 or so, and in a wheelchair. To see the true story of her younger years was such a treat.

The story was told SO very eloquently. Jonathan Firth and Victoria Hamilton were outstanding! They breathed life into their characters. I felt connected to Victoria and Albert somehow after I finished watching the movie. I actually felt like I was watching their lives unfold. The supporting cast was unreal. This was a dream cast, if I've ever seen one. Absolutely NO ONE was miscast. Nigel Hawthorne, as Lord M, was wonderful. The scene were he has to say goodbye to Victoria was so touching. Seeing these two historical characters sharing a tearful goodbye, and a handkerchief, was simply beautiful. The scenes between Victoria and Albert were pure magic. I love the scene between the two of them over the game of chess. I just don't know what else to say, except that this movie was utterly brilliant. It's an amazing in-depth look into 19th century British politics, but, above all, it's a stunningly glorious story of TRUE love. I'm getting teary-eyed just thinking about it! Please, please, take the time to see "Victoria and Albert". If you don't like this movie, well... then you and I could never possibly be friends. I know it's a bit harsh, but there it is. :)


"Victoria & Albert" examines the life Queen Victoria during the 24 year period from just prior to her coronation as Queen until the passing of her husband, Albert. Although this historical biopic spends precious little time with romance, it does dwell most on the relationship between the couple as they go about the business of working to bring dignity to a tarnished monarchy while raising a family and doing what royal couples do. Hamilton makes a solid centerpiece for this 3.5 hour miniseries which sports a capable ensemble and very good production value. If "V&A" has a liability, it is, perhaps, that the life of the Queen was not quite as interesting as the fictional lives of the characters from the more popular novels of the same period. Worth a look for those with an interest in Queen Victoria, the British monarchy, and the period. (B)


I must admit I really enjoyed 'Victoria and Albert'. It was excellent. My only criticism of the film was it could have been a couple of episodes longer as it left out so many other possibilities rushing to reach its conclusion. Jonathon Firth was really very good as Prince Albert and Victoria Hamilton made a good job at Queen Victoria. I particularly liked Dame Diana Rigg as Baroness Lehzen and Penelope Wilton as the Duchess of Kent. Sir Peter Ustinov was marvellous as King William IV. Patrick Malahide was so completely odious as Sir John Conroy. I also found Nigel Hawthorne brilliant as Viscount Melbourne. Rachel Pickup was really very good as Lady Henrietta Standish and David Suchet was great as Baron Stockmar. Jonathon Pryce was adequate as King Leopold I. Elizabeth Spriggs was delightful in a cameo role in 'The Rivals'. I would really recommend this.


Since the days gradually came on the Royal Family in Great Britain that they are to reign rather than rule, the struggle has always been to be popular and stay popular without being self indulgent. They are the unifying symbol for their country rather than a written Constitution that we Yanks have, so they're behavior, good or bad, counts for so much more.

The folks who established that tradition were Victoria & Albert, first cousins in the Saxe-Coburg family and husband and wife. Through her father, the Duke of Kent, young Victoria was the heir to the British monarchy to which she ascended in 1837.

Royalty made its last gasp for power immediately preceding the events that are shown in this mini-series. King William IV played here by Peter Ustinov by royal prerogative dismissed the government of Prime Minster Earl Grey. Robert Peel formed a Tory government, but it only lasted for a few months because Parliament by now had firm control of the Treasury. William IV was forced to call back Earl Grey and bow to the wishes of the people's representatives, now even more representative since the Reform Act of 1832 reapportioned Parliament after several hundred years.

So the monarchy was to reign instead of rule, but if this bunch didn't keep a lid on the peccadilloes, the folks in the United Kingdom might just take it in their heads to be rid of them and get themselves a republic like their former colonies had done. That was the duty that Prince Albert (Jonathan Firth) saw it and he persuaded his young bride, Queen Victoria (Victoria Hamilton) that they must do the same.

Albert was a serious young man and Victoria had been leading a sheltered life courtesy of her mother Penelope Wilton had led a life away from the dissolute Hanoverian Court of Uncles George IV and William IV.

When you have no other purpose in life, but to set an example, you'd better be good at that. A few in the Royal Family haven't lived up to that down to this day. If you can't be good, at least be discreet.

Victoria & Albert is a good mini-series from the BBC capturing the ambiance of the early Victorian era very well indeed. Diana Rigg won an Emmy for her performance as Baroness Lehzen, young Victoria's governess who didn't quite know when to let go.

You can enjoy it even if you're not familiar with British history.


When I first saw Victoria Hamilton in the trailers, I thought, 'she's not a good likeness', but having seen the first episode, I can only praise the wonderful acting and superb script. I, for one, (while reasonably coversant with history), have never thought about her early years on the throne, and the difficulty as a teenage monarch, of dealing with Mum and Parliament! Mentally, I was constantly comparing her situation with that other teenage female queen, Lady Jane Grey. Victoria as portrayed, is an engaging and thoroughly likable person, very much a child coming into adulthood, and thus a fascinating comparison to the standard historical perspective that we have grown up with.


Few movies are made that are so flawless. Perfect in: casting, directing, editing, content, costumes, and background music. All performances are believable and the diction is as clear as if it were an American made movie. The main character "Victoria" is played by Victoria Hamilton whose ability to express feelings without speaking is Oscar winning quality plus.


I thought for an August bank holiday it was nice to see the mini series Victoria and Albert I liked the way Jonathan Firth and Victoria hamilton played the royal couple if anyone likes royalty then this is for you and I do reccomend it.


Yes boss is a very sweet film.Its an innocent love story about two people who have lots of dreams ,aspirations.Rahul(shahrukhkhan)who is working in a company dreams big he wants to become rich and the only person who can fulfill his dreams is his boss(aditya pancholi) who is not exactly a villain but a casanova .But the story actually begins with Seema who like rahul dreams of becoming rich so what better than falling for a person who is rich and none other than rahul's boss .Rahul and seema become mere puppets in the hands of siddharth(aditya pancholi).As the story moves forward seema and rahul realize that they are in love .But they don't seem to express that.watch the climax part of the film its really interesting one.Shahrukh and juhi make a perfect couple their expressions are so beautiful that one cannot escape from falling in love with the characters.All and all good film


Yes Boss is very good. Shah Rukh Khan was out of this world! He was fantastic as usual. Juhi Chawla was excellent! They both played their characters beautifully.

It's about Rahul (Shah Rukh Khan) who wants to be rich and have his own advertising agency. He works for Sidarth Chaudhry (Aditya Pancholi). He is married but is known to have lots of girlfriends. One day Rahul sees a pretty model in the agency, Seema (Juhi Chawla). Rahul finds it to be love at first sight but his boss gets there first. Seema doesn't know that Sidarth is married. They both love each other. Seema then finds out that Sidarth is married and Sidarth comes up with a plan to get her back. The plan is that he will make it seem as if his wife is having an affair and it works. Seema and Sidarth are back together. Seema spends time with Rahul and she gets to love him. Sidarth finds out and after a while Sidarth makes Rahul decide, being boss of the agency or Seema. Which will Rahul go for being boss or Seema? Watch Yes Boss to find out.

Yes Boss deserves a 9/10!


If you are sick and tired of Shahrukh Khan playing the same role all the time (until recent Swades), watch some of his old flicks. If you think, he is only good at one role, you are wrong. He is a versatile actor, and one of my favorite actors. He is truly a good actor, and luckily he is playing different roles after Veer-Zaara (but Veer-Zaara and Main Hoon Na were kind of different). Over here, he is a continuation of his perky self in DDLJ. The concept of the character may be different, but who cares as long as he doesn't bore. The concept of the movie is very interesting. I personally thought real people can relate to this (dictating bosses taking pride possessions). The movie does bore you at moments, and it has it's usual clichés. This movie is from 1997, but outdated looks always gets in the way of the movie. But it's the actors who are the real stars. Juhi Chawla also blows you away with a charming performance (and beautiful looks). We know she is above this level, and it's sad how she departed from commercial cinema. But if we are patient, she might come back. Aditya Pancholi was perfect. I may have not liked the character, but wait..... wasn't that the point. You know when a character is hated when he is supposed to, the actor does no wrong. Johnny Lever, Gulshan Grover, and that friend of Shahrukhs were all adequate. The songs were very nice. My favorite song, in general, was Jaata Hai Tu Kahan (Where Do You Go?) presented in a perky matter. However Main Koi Aisa Geet Gaoon (If I Sing a Song Like This) and Chand Taare (Moon, Stars) were also nice and creative. Suniye To (Listen So) tried to be another Rukh Ja O Dil Deewane (DDLJ), but the choreography couldn't match up. But Ek Din Aap (One Day You....) succeeded in becoming a Hum Aapke Hain Koun. This movie is a must-see for Shahrukh Khan and Juhi Chawla.


Yes Boss is one of my favourite Hindi romantic comedies of the 1990s. It is a very charming film and provides a thoroughly pleasurable and enjoyable watch. The film is about Rahul (Khan), an ambitious guy works as an assistant of manipulative, married yet womanising businessman Siddharth (Pancholi). Rahul's loyalty to his boss is unlimited, and he does everything for him, even arranging his appointments with women. Siddharth, in turn, promises to help Rahul become an independent businessman in the corporate world. The real problem comes when Rahul falls for Seema (Chawla), a young model who instantly catches the eye of Siddharth. Knowing that his boss does not even take her seriously and that he is the one who should play the matchmaker in the story, Rahul now has to choose between his dreams of success, and his love for Seema.

This concept was very interesting and was brilliantly executed on-screen, with a lot of comedy, romance and even light suspense. But most importantly, it must be noted that it is not only an extremely entertaining flick with many hilarious moments. This movie has soul. The principles presented in this film are strong and remarkable. Rahul wants to become successful because he wants to make his mother happy, and it is evidenced in many sequences through the film. Juhi Chawla's Seema is an aspiring model, yet she comes across as a very simple and gentle young woman who has great values and who, like Rahul, has dreams of finding success. These two characters are extremely well-written and I find them very easy to relate to. The story shows, satirically yet substantially, how often we tend to lose ourselves when we try to make our dreams come true.

Shahrukh Khan and Juhi Chawla have a fantastic screen chemistry, and they complement each other very well. They both have something very unique about them, they have wit, happiness, sensitivity and humour. Shahrukh Khan is just extraordinary in this role. I cannot imagine any other actor playing Rahul as naturally and skillfully as he did. Khan always particularly excels in roles like this, where he plays the simple, sensitive, generous, happy and struggling middle-class guy. He is convincing, extremely likable, and seems to be tailor-made for this role. This role reminds me of his unforgettable character in Kundan Shah's masterwork "Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa". And like the latter, this is one of my favourite performances of Mr. Khan. Beautiful and vulnerable, Juhi Chawla is astonishing and enchanting as Seema. She displays both decisiveness, liveliness and confusion, and shows many sides of her personality, including dreaminess, love, anger and compassion. The growth of her character is believable, and as expected she is splendid in comic sequences.

Other cast members are good. Aditya Pancholi manages to be as hateful as his character requires. Kashmira Shah is pretty good in a small role and she is so gorgeous that many would wonder how her husband even thinks of cheating on her. Reema Lagoo and Johnny Lever do their usual stuff. One more aspect that significantly contributes to the film is undoubtedly Jatin-Lalit's soundtrack. Every song stands out. "Ek Din Aap" is very melodious and soothing; "Main Koi Aisa Geet" is very romantic and is brilliantly pictured on Khan and Chawla as he tries to entertain her and finally succeeds; "Choodi Baji Hai Kahi" is joyful and is beautifully shot among some breathtaking landscapes. "Chand Taare" is very pleasant. "Suniye To" and "Jaata Hai Tu Kaha" are very catchy. Yes Boss is one film I can watch again and again and always be excited and entertained. It is a delightful, graceful and memorable picture, and I highly recommend you to see it.


Barefoot Contessa is an amazing show. She is a perfectionist and her recipes are not always easy, but here's the kicker "they are always good". Many of her recipes have a French flair to them - old school cooking. This cooking is not always healthful - but in moderation is heavenly.

I like Ina's low key attitude. She speaks clearly and intelligibly - not running off crazy bird. I would rather spend an hour on a good Ina recipe than 45 minutes on a bad Rachael Ray recipe. With that said - that is the difference.

Ina Garten is a highly successful career woman - with a an amazing ability to cook. Her recipe for Roast Chicken is easy and amazing a favorite at our house. I also very much enjoy her ideas on table settings, decor, and party planning. She is a less abrasive version of Martha.

I am from an old school European family. We love to make beautiful meals. I was taught from an early age to set a beautiful table - that you did not scarf down your food - you dined - enjoyed it. I know we all have busy lives but a return to beautifully prepared meals and great conversation is much more needed in today's society.


Ina Garden rocks her cooking is simple,tasty,and fun to make. I love making her deserts it's really easy. She talks the talks and walks the walks. I mean some other cooking shows the ingredients are really hard to find. But Ina recipes are easy and great. I mean her famous roast chicken are really tasty. I bought her book about 2 weeks ago and the recipes are easy. In her show I sometimes like to cook along with her. And I love cooking, Ina's show makes a big difference for new people who are trying to cook. Watch this show and love it. It has great ideas of cooking and you might learn something new. Like I learned a new way of how to set the table..................laugh out loud. But the point is she is a great host a chef and her cooking is of the hook.


I love this show. I love the interaction between Ina and her husband Jeffery. They make such a cute couple.I never miss this show (everyday at 5 PM.) :) It's better than watching annoying Rachel or WORSE that Sandra lee & her semi-homemade junk....Ugh... That woman is SO full of herself!! Ina is so refreshing she doesn't need get all dressed up like that Sandra lee woman,like it's a fashion show. Ina's personality & food speak for themselves . I also love the fact that she does the "Dinner party" thing or just a small meal / lunch for herself or a special dinner for Jeffery . It's different.Her food always looks SO Delicious too. I have tried a couple of her dishes & they were easy & fun to make.


I DO enjoy this show-it's low key and many of the recipes sound great. The only problem: unless you have a ton of time, you can't put these together in a pinch, not to mention the money most of these will cost. But, if you do, you're sure to enjoy it. One example of a minor "flaw": some of her bake sale items are way too complicated or upscale for us lesser folks. More highbrow than some of the other Foodnetwork fare, it is nonetheless a good fit and well worth a look, even if it's in a longing, "I wish I could do /afford that" mode. In summary, it's probably in league with Emeril as it would appear to be a program for the more sophisticated cook with the before mentioned time and cash at one's discretion.


I love Ina! She's kind of a snob, but her food always looks excellent! Her house is fabulous and so is the garden! My family and I have made a few recipes and we weren't disappointed. I wonder why the Food Network never includes her in their specials though. I figure she's too good for them! I love that she's not a stick figure too! You can tell she's enjoying life! Her friends seem like they've known her for quite awhile and are always good sports. Some of the things she makes are not very practical, but that's OK. My sisters and I joke about what the perfect meal would be from her, and we always argue because there are so many to choose from!


This cooking show is outstanding for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, is Ina Garten. She has such a relaxed speaking voice that you can't not help but feel relaxed. Her entire demeanor is one of a relaxed, good friend. You get the feeling that you're a long time friend of hers & you're simply sitting on a stool in her kitchen & she's talking with you as she prepares her meal.

Her recipes of course are always tantalizing and I always get hungry watching her show.

Her East Hampton home is classy & elegant without being pretentious.

And it's great that she doesn't focus solely on the food but brings in the other elements to fine dining: that being table set-ups, location and of course people! It's fun to see the different locales on her show; whether it's her own back yard, or the beach or a friend's home.

Ina Garten is a class act in this world of crass, kitchy-ness!


Review: Rice Rhapsody (2004) By Ken Lee

Though director Kenneth Bi's _Rice Rhapsody_ (2004) generates much interest primarily of its homosexuality theme (that troubled the Singapore Board of Film Censorship inasmuch as its month-long deliberation for the film's wide release in the city state in which the film is set and made), it explores at its core generational conflict; specifically, how a single parent's inability to adapt to modern circumstances leads to disillusionment and more misunderstanding. So it'd be misleading to categorize this as a "Gay" film, per se.

The plot is set in contemporary Singapore's Chinatown. Sylvia Chang, wonderful and enarmoured with supposed Singlish, plays a single mother (Jen) struggling with the uncertainty surrounding the sexual orientation of her third son, Leo (played by a certain delectable newcomer, Tan LePham), when his two elder siblings are both out and proud, much to her dismay, bringing issues of same-sex marriage and their boy-friends back to dinner table discussion. The lives of the family are going to be changed with the arrival of a French foreign exchange student, Sabine, played by a cooky Mélanie Laurent, who has a thing or two to show about finding common grounds, and knowing what's truly important in life.

The issue of homosexuality isn't a "modern" circumstance, of course. Its open acceptance (or tolerance) and embraced and head-on examination as an "idea", however, is, especially in this city-state notorious for its anti-gay "lifestyles" stance. So even if the movie isn't without its flaw, it's still ultimately uplifting, and a welcome addition to a growing list of movies purport to examine social, cultural and political aspects of the city-state, from "12 Storeys" to "Eating Air" to "Chicken Rice War".

Recommended.

Little known facts: Director Kenneth Bi is the son of Ivy Ling (Ling Bo) who is a mega star in Shaw's Huang Mei Diao era. She has a cameo appearance in this film.


I had heard of this film but didn't get to see it until it'd been selected as one of the top 10 Chinese language films of 2005 by the Chinese Film Critics Association. It certainly deserved this prestigious honour because this dramatic comedy has a solid story, good performances, beautiful scenery and amazing music.

The story is about a single mother, Jen (veteran Taiwanese actress Sylvia Chang), and her three not-so-model sons. One by one the sons fail her expectations in various ways, mostly by becoming gay. In desperation she, with the help of a friend, Kim Chui (Martin Yan in a surprisingly natural and understated performance), come up with a plan to make sure her youngest son Leo stays straight and remains her "pride and joy."

This film deals with several phenomena in the modern Chinese society: homosexuality, which could be a metaphor for any "undesirable" quality the kids take on against their parents' wish; a middle-aged woman fighting social pressures; and the change in the parent-child relationship as the younger generation of Chinese moves away from the traditional "obey your elderly" doctrine. The best part is all these important issues are revealed in a very entertaining comedy of manners!

Sylvia Chang is wonderful as the "suffering" mother. The character of Jen is like many mothers, particularly Chinese mothers - strong and resilient. Her love for her sons is expressed through feeding and providing for them, and choosing for them what's best for them. The best moment in the film for me is when Jen realizes all her boys have grown up and have a mind of their own. It is now up to her to change her ways and discover that the best way to love them is to love them just the way they are.


Hainan ji fan (2004), shown in the U.S. with the title Rice Rhapsody, was written and directed by Kenneth Bi. It stars Sylvia Chang as Jen, the proprietor of a Chinese restaurant in Singapore.

Jen's professional life is going well, but she is depressed because her two older sons are gay, and she believes her youngest son may be gay as well. The script introduces an outside character--Sabine, played by Mélanie Laurent--who is a French foreign exchange student living with the family.

The plot is fairly predictable--the gay sons are very gay, the rival chef who wants to marry Jen is very persistent, and the exchange student is very sophisticated and very French. Unfortunately, the movie goes in several directions. When you read the promotional material, you expect Sabine's relationship to the family to be pivotal. Actually, her character sort of drifts in an out, making worldly and adorably French comments as she goes past. Without that plot anchor, the film more or less drifts aimlessly along to a Hollywood-style conclusion.

However, Singapore is--for me--an exotic and unknown location, and I enjoyed the fabulous views of the city. The cooking scenes were very well handled, and the acting was solid. Production values were high.

This film was shown as a 35mm print, which I think is the best way to see it. It will work on DVD, but not quite as well. It's not worth making a great effort to seek out the movie, but it's still worth seeing. (We saw it at the Rochester NY Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival.)


Translated literally to English as Hainan Chicken Rice, or South Sea Chicken Rice, Kenneth Bi's 2004 polish galore rides the food angle in a manner a bit too reminiscent of Ang Lee's Eat Drink Man Woman, with the two having more than culinary delights in common. The newer release likewise wants to hop on the bandwagon by way of presenting international spectators with a pleasant premise where everyone's friendly and cheerful, and everything looks brightly colorful as if fresh out of an Ikea catalog.

Not necessarily major faults, but if in the market for hard-hitting content, look elsewhere, let alone since Rice Rhapsody does attempt a dabble in the more controversial, namely homosexuality, but stops short of genuinely addressing issues of any meaningful disposition. At least it does reasonably well in the political correctness department, touching on the topic matter-of-factly and without prejudice or sensationalism.

It also features auteur Sylvia Chang, director of notable flicks Princess D and 20-30-40, in one of her better performances. In addition, through the introduction of a Western exchange student into proceedings, the film engages viewers in multicultural interaction of a variety less stereotypical than usual, a substantial plus right there. However, despite these pros Rice Rhapsody in the end culminates in a flat, unremarkable experience that won't stay with you very long, unlike other products in its range, like excellently emotional Yi Yi (2000).

Furthermore, the decision to make this into a Singapore-based item seems random and bizarre, especially since the main character and star obviously insist on reverting to what sounds suspiciously akin to Taiwanese (Chang's from Taiwan in case you were wondering).

For her part, she does pretty well as restaurant owner Jen, straddled with three successful sons whose sexual orientation and lifestyle she reluctantly accepts. Her greatest hope lies with youngest offspring Leo (Lepham Tan), a student on his way to finding a path through life. Things go more or less as per normal for the family and Jen's rival-would-be-lover Kim Chui (Martin Yan), a fellow eatery proprietor competing with her titular signature dish, Hainan Chicken Rice (his version has duck instead). Normal, that is, until Jen's worries over the kids all playing for the same team begin to encroach, and she enlists Kim Chui's help in saving the day. This he attains, or deigns to, by shacking up French intellectual traveler Sabine (Melanie Laurent) with Jen and last bird in the nest Leo, hoping the two will strike up a relationship that'll bring the lad back from the brink. The ensuing plot involves a little bit of several themes, most memorable of these the existential discourse between Sabine and Leo, parts of which take place in a cemetery for sheer effect.

Naturally, the plan goes slightly awry, with Sabine not always playing along the script and generally showing more overt interest in simply making the most of her Singapore jaunt instead of catering to Jen and her matchmaking schemes. She also never really signs up for classes, official reason for being in the city state to begin with. While on the Singapore front, save for a few glimpses of Tiger Beer you'd be hard pressed to even notice the seldom-used locale, opposite of what we've come to expect from Hong Kong, for example. There's one ambient highlight, though, with hottie Maggie Q stepping in as starlet Gigi, an underutilized extra idling screen time chomping on entrees instead of enlightening Leo with her obvious allure.

And although Sabine's incapable of using chopsticks (laugh at the "foreigners" again, why not), overall one must assert Rice Rhapsody really doesn't try to cash in on any Asian vs. Western tripe, nor does it make a big deal of cross-cultural love affairs. In fact, it makes a big deal of nothing at all, opting for a smiles-all-around, friendly approach that borders on a somewhat unwanted, and largely ineffective, comedic angle. Suffice to say the greatest moment of tension throughout comes at a cooking contest towards the end, and let us tell you it ain't no Iron Chef at that.

But at least you have Sylvia Chang pulling off a manifold, believable depiction of basically her own self, and a film devoid of absolutely any disturbing or otherwise risky aspects.

For those on a mission to watch as many movies from the greater China region as possible (sounds familiar), Rice Rhapsody probably makes for a decent companion to stuff like Pushing Hands et al. It's also the first of JCE Productions' international iterations, marking the beginnings of Jackie Chan's endeavors as world-hugging producer on the global stage through is own outfit.

Probably more than the above, though, Rice Rhapsody comes in handy for watching with your mom or sisters during one of those family afternoons we get once in a while. Have fun and try to take it seriously: this one won't do that for you.

Rating: * * *


Rice Rhapsody may sound promising, in terms of making its ways to several film festival, a pretty well known cast and crew (Taiwanese award winning actress Sylvia Chang and world acclaimed celebrity chef Martin Yan as the leading cast, with Jackie Chan as the executive producer), and together with the help of Singapore Film Commission. However, the serving of chicken rice turns out to be tasteless and tough.

This is young director Kenneth Bi's debut feature, where Rice looks like a movie from the final year students in a movie school doing its final year project.

Sylvia and Martin were horribly miscast as the role of Jen, a chicken rice seller, and Kim Shui, a duck rice seller. Jen and Kim Shui are rivals in business, as their stall is just opposite one another. However, Kim Shui is a bachelor who admires Jen, and try all ways to woo Jen.

Jen no longer trusted any man after her husband left her 16 years ago. With her secret chicken rice recipe, she brought up her 3 sons. However, Daniel and Harry, who are the 1st and 2nd son, turns out to be gays. Jen placed her bet on Leo, the youngest son, who is barely a teenager around 15 and 16 years old, to breed an offspring for the family line. Fearing that Leo would follow his brothers footsteps, Jen and Kim Shui try all ways to match him with Sabine, a female French exchange student who is coming to Singapore.

A night of passion with Sabine and the loss of his bestfriend makes Leo discover his sexual orientation. Kim Shui comes out with new duck dishes that beats Jen's chicken rice business. Double pressure coming down together makes Jen loses hope on the people around her, except for Sabine, where Sabine teaches Jen that there are more things in life to look out for.

It just sounds like your typical family drama, where someone wants to go their way, while others are trying to pull the whole family together. In terms of being a family drama, Rice has achieved only about 50% of it. The main focus on the film is all about how Jen is trying to prevent Leo from becoming a gay, so as to pass down the family line.

Placing Sylvia Chang the role of a typical Singaporean housewife is a bad choice. Poor language usage of dialogues in the film worsen the whole movie. No matter how hard Sylvia try to speak like a Singaporean women, her American accent English simply pulls her effort down, making whatever she said sounds pretendous.

Placing Martin Yan as Kim Shui is the worst choice. His heavy American accent English do not sound like a typical Singaporean hawker who owns a duck rice stall at your neighbourhood Singaporean coffeeshop (and i do not mean Starbucks in American terms.) Instead of using Chinese dialects, Mandarin and Singapore style English in the film, perfect English were used instead, giving Singaporean audience a good laugh, where two non-Singaporean Chinese were chosen to play Singaporeans. It puts the audience into a big puzzle: is this an total English speaking Singapore production? The ending of the film lacks punch, where Leo and Jen participated in a cooking competition. No tense atmosphere, no grand showdown, just the love between a mother and her son. Apparently, wrong location was chosen for both the mother and the son to express their love for each other.

Though Rice was slapped with an M18 rating (which refers to not suitable for audience aged 18 and below) for discussing and glorifying homosexuality, Rice is not a gay drama. It looks into the love between a mother and her gay sons, her acceptance of homosexuality and how to strike a balance between her traditional values and homosexuality.

If more details could be put in and having Singaporean cast to play the role of Jen and Kim Shui, the chicken rice would taste much more better.


The reviewer who labeled this "The WORST movie of all time" must not have seen many movies. Far worse films top the box office on an average weekend. Some people just can't handle low budget movies. Some can't handle Horror Comedies. So if you're a stickler for a multi-million dollar budget and a film that takes itself too seriously, you may well want to avoid Hide and Creep. On the other hand, if you're like most genre fans and enjoy the occasional humor with your Horror, you should get a kick out of this film. If you like films along the lines of Bad Taste, Evil Dead 2, Evil Aliens and Slither then you'll probably understand this movie.

Hide and Creep is both a parody and an homage to Romero and Raimi and Jackson. It's chock full of in jokes and not so subtle references that only a true movie geek can fully appreciate. Lots of bad makeup and iffy effects that some movies would expect the audience to believe as genuine. That's part of the gag. The zombies aren't meant to look 'real'. The gore is meant to induce more laughs than scares. Again, don't take the film too seriously. It's not a serious film. It's a comedy. Not a broad, slapstick parody in the Scary Movie vein but a parody just the same. Better than Shaun of the Dead? No but I laughed more at Hide and Creep than I did Shaun or even Slither for that matter.

While small on budget, Hide and Creep is huge on heart. Real Horror fans should appreciate such love for the genre and the effort put forth by young filmmakers with no studio backing.


Went to the local film festival earlier tonight, or at least the kick-off for the local film festival. The venue couldn't have been worse, but it did aid in the general essence of the movie, Hide and Creep. The show was at Sloss Furnace in a concrete pit normally used for rock concerts and had small folding chairs for seating with a plethora of smoking and drinking. So what I am getting at is, it was a fun and unique experience!

Now, as a preface I want to tell you that I am a huge fan of the horror genre. I like it all, shock-horror (naked blood), gore-horror (dead alive), classic-horror (night of the living dead), sci-fi-horror (event horizon), suspense-horror (in the mouth of madness), standard-horror (hell raiser), modern-horror (ginger snaps) and many others that I could go on listing forever. I like these movies for many different reasons and that is a whole other topic altogether, perhaps in the forums...

This movie starts out quite amusingly with Chuck (writer/director/producer/actor) in his movie rental shop in rural Alabama, chastising a person on the phone about ZOMBIE films. Brilliant beginning. After reluctantly killing a ZOMBIE and finding out that the sheriff AND deputy are unavailable he does what any other good southerner would do and drops the dispatched ZOMBIE at the cop-shop and explains to a girl at the restaurant across the street where his breakfast is to be the obvious difference between Coke and Pepsi (the impostor cola).

That is all I will ruin for you. If you are a casual fan of ZOMBIE films and like the new trend of horror films not taking themselves too seriously, then I can offer no better movie in that style than this.

Camp, fun, charm and style, this flick has it all. I have no idea about the national release of this film, but I recommend it to just about anyone with a sense of humor and looking for a horrific-ZOMBIEfied time!

To answer questions, yeah, there is nudity, yeah they have to be shot in the head, yeah, there are a lot of inside jokes for Alabamaians that won't all be lost on everyone else, and yeah, Coke is better than Pepsi!


I love zombie movies and I always appreciate seeing someones take on the zombie genre. This wasn't an excellent film by any means but it was funny and I really liked what they tried to do. It had some creative moments in it which now a days that is all you can really expect from a zombie movie. I know I just want to see something that I have not seen a million times already and I believe with this movie there are some real fresh moments. I would definitely recommend this movie not because it's perfect or wonderful, but because it's funny and has some new zombie moments in it. I really enjoyed the idea that Zombies are afraid of the dark. I don't recall ever seeing that before in a zombie film and it actually makes some sense. It removes the fear of the night and actually gives you a safe feeling. The quality isn't perfect so when you rent it do not expect top of the line Romero style Zombies, it's an Independent Film and it shows.


If you enjoy "B" movies with "C" attitude then this movie is for you. While the plot is OK, it is predictable. The writing loosely reminds me of Kevin Smith's style. I am by no means comparing Kevin Smith to these writers so don't get your hopes up. The special effects are limited. This movie was done on a budget and it shows. The DVD box compares this movie to Shaun of the Dead. I don't think so. There are some funny parts though. Despite all of this movie's shortcomings, I did like it. This movie compares to "Children of the Dead" for so many reasons. I don't regret renting this move. IF you enjoy low budget horror films, give this one a try. It is a lot better than a lot of films I have rented.


Despite the fact that there was a comparison to "Shaun of the Dead" on the cover of this, I watched it anyway. In fact, the blurb said it was "Better than Shaun of the Dead". Well, since everything these days is "all that and a bag of chips" no matter how bad it is, I was pleasantly surprised that this was as good as it was. But it isn't better than "Shaun of the Dead". Anyway, a small town in Alabama is plagued by Zombies, all of a sudden. Is it the result of a never-shown space craft that kidnapped a man, a woman, and a 1964 and a half Ford Mustang? Well, maybe. Anyway, a video store owner is the first to be visited by a zombie, and since the sheriff is out of town and the deputy went back to the place of some woman he went out with last night (who just happened to live in Panama City, Florida), the town is without an authority figure, so the video store guy plops the corpse in the lobby of the sheriff's office with a post-it note stuck to its forehead (for the sheriff to call him on Monday, of course). A guy from Homeland Security parachutes in to look into this problem, commandeers the car belonging to the sheriff's secretary and begins to investigate. The secretary calls in a former deputy and ex-boyfriend to the investigation and pretty soon the zombies are running amok and they're all trying to hide out away from them. This is all done in a kind of sarcastic and dry humor, so must be seen to be appreciated, really. Best is the woodsman/survivalist guy leaving his young daughters at home and telling the oldest one what to do if anyone comes by the house while he's gone, and walking her through the steps to deal with strangers if they try to get into the house. Later in the movie the front yard is shown and there are dozens of corpses lying there from her blowing them away. This has a rather ambiguous ending though, but other than that it's pretty damn funny and while my review may not necessarily reflect that, that's because it's more one of those movies you have to really see to appreciate. And please do, there aren't that many good low-budget horror/comedies out there these days that are worth seeing.


Story: Aliens invade a redneck town in Alabama. Give anal probes and somehow create a hoard of zombies. A video store owner and rednecks with guns must now save the town.

Review: I was laughing throughout this film. The parodies to the mighty Dead Quadrilogy (there are only three good American films, and they were all directed by Romero), South Park, and redneck jokes kept me laughing. There were also a lot of parallels to another parody, Shaun of the Dead. The acting in this movie wasn't good, but that was part of the charm and humor of this film. This is what Troma tries to do and fails. This was a nice low budget film with a spirited cast and director. The filming was very interesting because it was done on location in small town Alabama. It helped made the movie look authentic and original.

Overall, this is a movie that you just have to set back and enjoy. It is not to be taken seriously. It is very flawed but charming. The story isn't brilliant and the acting is weak, but it still manages to keep you laughing with its originality.

My Recommendation: It isn't for everyone. Fans of Dead Meat and Dead & Breakfast should like it. It is not a Shaun of the Dead, but it is very funny.


I can forgive a couple of guys trying to cash in and ride on the coattails of a "funny" zombie movie like Shaun of the Dead and the Hartsells were heading in the right direction, but lack of money, lack of writing talent, and lack of any real directorial ability dooms them from the start. HIDE AND CREEP takes place in a Southern redneck town, where a zombie plague has suddenly sprung up. And when I mean "sprung up" I mean "sprung up" because zombies appear almost out of thin air - in the church, in the video store and in a living room (where one zombie comes right through the door without any of the five people in the house seeing it and one zombie comes up from the basement where one man had said was empty not five seconds before). The ultimate reason why the zombies have started appearing (aliens) is stupid, the makeup is poor and the acting is dismal. But I'll tell you what - put some more money into the project, some better writers for the dialogue, and a new director and an idea like HIDE AND CREEP has real funny possibilities.


I honestly believe that any positive review of this film "Hide and Creep" must come from friends and family of the crew on this nostril flaring stinker. Retail shops such as Hollywood Video and Blockbuster must be forced into taking movies like Hide and Creep with the promise of cheap fees or royalties. The people behind Hide and Creep may think they're paying homage to greats like Night of the Living Dead and Evil Dead, but all they are really doing is creating a waste of time for any human being dumb enough to fall for the fake reviews on the DVD cover art. I hope, no, I pray that these southern goof balls never touch a camera again and stick with what they're good at...watching movies, not making them.


Is anybody besides me getting burned out on low budget "homages" to other low budget "homages" ?

Take everything you've ever seen in a spoof about horror movies, minus a decent budget, add talentless writers directors and actors and add a "we're so hip check this out wink wink nudge nudge" tone to the movie and you have hide and creep. Oh, if you can't get Stephen King, Clive Barker, Quentin Tarantino, or Robby Rodriguez just get the guy that did Clerks and Dogma to throw a stupid blurb on the DVD cover. Everyone cares what he thinks, right...?

This movie wasn't even funny in a stupid kind of way. Stay away from this dog.


First of all, full disclosure: I worked on this movie.

I'm gonna give inside info:

The original cover (what it was peddled with) was a humorous one. The distributors chose to go with a more ominous cover that would indicate a more gore-based movie (which it's not, but does have a couple of CGI moments that are real enough not to be noticed, thank you Rob Rugan and Jimbo...).

The quote that it was better than "Shaun of the Dead" contains ellipsis that belie the original statement which was along the lines of 'it has moments that are even better than Shaun of the Dead'. These are choices that the distributer makes. They have nothing to do with the movie makers.

This movie was not made as a response to "Shaun of the Dead": technically, it was released the day before "Shaun of the Dead". It premiered at the Sidewalk Film Festival in Birmingham AL the Thursday before "Shaun" was released on Friday. That's not to say it's success wasn't related to "Shaun" at all, it totally was in my opinion, but again, that's the distributer, not the makers.

I've only said this for the commenters who took fault with these points. If you don't like it for other reasons, that's totally reasonable.

And for 25K, you can't expect a better outcome for a bunch o' folks with day jobs.


Saw this on Sci Fi and what can I say but it was possibly the most amateurish "movie" I have ever seen. And I could only bear to watch the first 10 - 15 minutes of it before I had to turn it off. I saw all I needed to see at that point. My god. Imagine if a group of High School students decided to shoot a zombie movie for fun and use it on halloween for laughs. Well this is what you would get, except maybe the high school kids might do a better job! The actors in this film all look like rejects from Hee-Haw and the direction and cinematography is abysmal. The make up on the zombies is not as good as a mask you can buy in a dollar store. This film gets the lowest grade possible. I can only marvel how this trash actually got released.


I love comedy mixed with horror/drama movies, such as Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2, Army of Darkness, Dr. Strangelove, Love and a .45, etc. But this movie ....... SUCKED!!! I got my poor wife excited into watching a great, funny horror movie, "Better than Shaun of the Dead," which we loved, and after 45 minutes she got up and quietly walked away and left me to watch it alone. I just fast forwarded it and didn't even bother watching the accompanying short movie.

I feel like finding out who the reviewer on the CD cover was that said it's "Better than Shaun of the Dead." That's the reason I rented it. I want to tell him that he's an idiot.


I just saw this movie on SciFi and I am lucky to have shambled across it. First of all, it has real people from Alabama portraying people from Alabama, so there are no horrible saccharin southern accents. Secondly, it ties together aliens, the government and the undead which any conspiracy theorist will tell you is a no-BRAINer. Third, and this is all you need to know, it is filled to bursting with zombie goodness! And who doesn't like zombies? I think its great that this movie is playing on late night TV. It is far superior to the made for TV crap starring whatever latest dork just crawled off the back page of Soap Opera Digest that usually haunts the SciFi channel. And yes, the "Coke is superior to Pepsi" monologue is the stuff that fun budget movies are made of. Only the characters in this movie aren't just spouting smug self conscious dialogue; they're getting off zombie head shots while they deliver the laughs. This is what Troma would like to be, and what Kevin Smith doesn't have the balls to be. I give it two thumbs up...a zombies butt!


For the horror fans in the crowd, even the fringe fans, this is an enjoyable movie. Sure, it's low budget, it pays homage to other B-movies and the acting isn't going to win any Oscars. For all that, it does a decent job of entertaining with the premise of rednecks battling zombies.

There isn't a lot of sleaze; only one scene with minor nudity, nor does the gore go over the top, so it isn't a schlockfest. The characters seem to be enjoying their roles, the dialogue was semi-witty, the production values better than many movies in the genre. It looks like a movie that was fun to work on.

Good enough for zombie fans? Yes, indeed, the zombies are quite acceptable in this movie and act according to the standard model of zombie behavior. They lurch, drool, bite and bleed like zombies should.

This is a beer and chips movie, without doubt. Enjoy it with your friends and some snacks. Break out the stash first and you'll be rating it up there with The Godfather.


Well, what can I say. When you are only about five minutes into a movie and you see a guy wearing a white tee-shirt....and NOTHING else! I got this used at a game store, (three movies for ten bucks, how can I go wrong?) I got my money's worth. Another in a seemingly endless stream of brand X zombie movies. Everyone involved seemed to be having fun. The makeup was subpar, all the zombies looked like people that needed a good night's sleep. Some of the guns were obviously starter pistols, or something. This time, an infestation of "R.C."s, reanimated corpses, invades Dixie. Played about half for laughs and half for horror, neither half ever delivers the goods 100%. Does that make sense? The plot is fairly straight forward and involves aliens, lesbian strippers, good ol' boy gun nuts, a pretty cool video store owner, who was also the director,(he kinda reminded me of Joel Robinson from MST3K), and a feisty, fairly hot secretary. The copy on the box compared this favourably to Shaun of the Dead, lies! all lies! I did laugh though when one guy who was starting to "turn" tried munching on himself and a reverend also turning after being bitten, cut loose with a stream of profanity in the pulpit. If you can get it as cheap as I did then buy it, otherwise, it's good for a rental. Get some barbecue and a six pack of Coke, (not Pepsi) and soak up the Southern hospitality.


Okay, the make-up and sfx (or lack thereof) are simply ridiculous, but that in a way adds to the fun. The movie is cleverly written, with some definite and obvious nods towards Quentin Tarantino's style of pop culture infused script. The naked for the hell of it zombies are swell, and the movie delivers more than a few decent chuckles. I think an attempt to make viewers more aware of this films spoof nature, as opposed to actual "scary zombie" would garner it a more wide spread enjoyment. The spaceship angle is a bit goofy, but plays up the randomness of the Romero films, with the "why did this just start happening" aspect. And the preacher going off on his church was a clever bit. For a micro-budget film, this one really is worth picking up and giving a view.


Any good review of this film was done by someone that had a stake in the movie. This waste of time is supposed to be an amusing spoof on low budget zombie movies. The rationale given by the makers of this crap fest was "that's why the make-up is so bad, it's funny!" NO IT'S NOT! It's just plain dumb! The DVD cover said "better than Shaun of the dead." NO IT'S NOT! Not even close! Shaun was a spoof and a well done one. Hide and Creep actually justifies censorship and book burning (in this case,script burning if it had a script). I actually got my money back from Hollywood video for this waste of 4 bucks. I would've enjoyed flushing the money down the toilet more than spending it on Hide and Creep...an utterly talentless, stupid and unfunny imposition on my time.


Sigh. How can zombies ever get respect when losers like Bruno Mattei and morons who get their hands on cameras make crap like this. I thought The Undead was stupid and bad, this is worse. Quite possibly the worst actually since Day of the Dead:Contagium and Zombie Night are right down there in the sewer with this worthless piece of garbage. Oh, did I mention I ABSOLUTELY HATED THIS? No decent acting, a stupid story, terrible camera work. I mean, a blind Ed Wood with a lobotomy would have done a more coherent job! This was just so lame. How do these people get the funding to make these craporama's when there have to be more talented filmmakers out there who can't even get a foot in the door? Amazing. Just a terrible, no-budget film with not an original idea in sight. Sigh... poor zombies. Perhaps one day someone other than George Romero and Jorge Grau will make a decent zombie movie. (And Alejandro De Ossorio).


For starters, Ed Wood has been de-throned! Hide and Creep is by far one of the all time worst films ever made. This movie is proof that the only thing good coming out of the deep south is the northbound train! Hide and Creep is what you get when you give a couple of hillbillies a camera. This movie was chock full of crappy acting, editing, art direction and so much more. In some scenes I had to turn up the volume so I could hear the stupid banter (obviously, these actors were not properly "miked." These guys sadly believed that they were spewing great dialog. It was embarrassingly bad at best. If you threw camera equipment into the Gorilla Pit at the zoo, you'd wind up with a BETTER produced film. The folks that made Hide and Creep must have literally yanked some distributor to get this waste of good film stock into the rental stores. This film should come with a warning: "Watch Only if you have the I.Q. of a head of lettuce."


I was pleasantly surprised by this flick. I expected another low-budget bad zombie movie, and what I got was a very good low-budget zombie movie. Once I got past the very cheap zombie makeup, I enjoyed the humor and the frequent nods to the zombie horror genre. Much of the humor in this film will probably play better to people who've lived in the South, but I think it has appeal for many genre fans.

"Hide and Creep" is a nice change from the usual crop of poor straight-to-video horror films that have been coming out of the South over the past few years. Unlike some of the terrible works by rather talentless directors such as Jeff Thomas, et al., Hartsell and Shirley's film isn't heavy-handed and full of religious agenda (see "13 Seconds" if you'd like to see what I'm talking about). Despite what was clearly a non-existent budget, the directors here did keep production values in mind to the extent they could afford them. I'd really like to see what they could do with a real budget and hopefully they've gotten one by now because these folks have a shot at doing something great in horror if they're given the chance.

Considering that this was Hartsell & Shirley's first film, it's an excellent effort from two people who are obviously fellow horror fans. I hope to see more from them!


OKay first off I had nothing to do with this movie nor did I personally know any of the actors or any of the cast or crew members for that matter.

I have seen the worst of the worst zombie movies and movies in general. This is a very low budget movie with that in mind this movie was done very well.. Almost too well. My friends and I still quote lines from it and we still get together and watch it when we have our zombie movie get togethers. The acting was OK, the plot was OK and the effects were a little on the cheap side but for a low budget movie and entertainment it really does get much better than this movie.. Keep in mind that it is a low budget cheap cheezy zombie movie. but its funny and fun to watch.. I liked it and will defend it to anyone...

If you wanna she some crap movies check out anything by asylum. Especially that Night of the Dead Leben Tod that is the worst movie ever made.. Chuck and Chance are Spielbergs compared to that crap.


The story may be 50 years old but this revised version,shown live in 2005, was every bit is tense and thrilling as the original.

Great performances by David Tennant,Adrian Dunbar,Andy Tiernan and Jason Flemyng were overshadowed by the acting of Indira Verma and Mark Gatiss who stole the show.

The lack of CGI and any real special effects will probably seem strange to the modern audience who like monsters and gore but I found it a treat to be able to use my imagination which was stoked up by the performances.

The ending may also disappoint in this regard. However given the premise that Quatermass is appealing to the "Humanity" of the victims I think it works very well on an abstract level and has a creepy feel all of its own.

The DVD version uses two clips taken from the recording of the final run through and allows for the smooth running of a couple of shots that, on the night, didn't go to plan! This is a pity as it gives the over all production too much polish and loses some of its "as live" appeal.

No matter - maybe the programme will be repeated as was in the future (Or the cut scenes will appear as extras somewhere - they are not on the DVD unfortunately!).

There is an easter egg on the video if you search for it - and is of great interest to Doctor Who fans! Bob


I thought that the whole production, considering it was a live presentation, was very well scripted. The acting was great and there were no "Fluffs" of note. The only thing out of the ordinary to happen was one of the actors falling over a prop off camera. The actor could be heard hurting himself.

The special effects were not great and practically non-existent, but considering the fact that it was done in real time this is not surprising. Also this was more of a modern story with a lot of characterisation, which makes one forget the absence of the more special effects which one would have if it was not a staged show.

Would I buy it if it came out on DVD? Difficult question as I still favour the original version. I might be tempted if both films came out on one DVD or more special effects were added later.


When I heard that the BBC were planning to re-make The Quatermass Experiment, I got quite excited. The original is lost forever (except for two episodes) and the film, although a fairly good version (sorry Nigel) is half as long as the original. Great, the BBC might beef this up with some good effects, a colour version to last and interest others in Nigel Kneale's much underrated genius. What planet was I living on? 'Here, let's remake Quatermass'. 'Good idea, ooh shall we spend some money on it like Dr Who? Make it something people will remember'? 'Nah let's cut an hour out, pretend CGi's never been invented, and do it live as a gimmick and instantly forgettable'! 'Oh, and then let's cock-up 'A For Andromeda' in the same spectacular style'! Unforgivable! My advice, buy the scripts in paperback and imagine yourself a better version!


We watched this the other night because of the reputation of the cast - particularly Mark Gatiss and David Tennant - not to mention the "iconic" nature of the name Quatermass. At the time we didn't know that it had been recorded live. Hence we had no idea why there were no special effects, strange Apprentice-style flyover shots of London, not to mention some bizarre prop choices (what *was* that thing that fell on the floor in the art gallery?!). Of course these were either caused by, or designed to overcome, the technical limitations of a live broadcast.

However I still don't understand the anachronisms. If it wasn't for the Tate Modern and the BBC news bulletins, there would be no reason to think this wasn't a 1950's period drama. The dialogue was in the post-imperial stiff upper lip tradition and the newspaper reporter was, bizarrely, a teddy boy. The saddest thing is the complete failure of the programme to create any tension, fear or even intellectual curiosity on the viewer's part.

A wasted opportunity. They should have given this to the Doctor Who production team and done it properly - i.e., not live.


I watched this experiment shortly after watching the second episode of Doctor Who. That particular endeavour has successfully updated a previous science fiction programme and brought it kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Witty, intelligent scripts;good cast giving top notch performances;state of the art special effects. This on the other hand was a waste of the viewer's time. At least it was restricted to a digital channel so the majority of people would have avoided watching it. I only hope the luvvies taken part in the exercise enjoyed the "danger" of a live performance. I found the acting flat, the special effects non-existent (if you want to leave it to the imagination of the viewer-do radio) and the script ludicrous (example reaction to man in lab when apparent tramp wanders in)


Back in the 60's and 70's, studio-based sci-fi dramas were made and devoured by a mainstream audience. At some point that audience became a "cult" audience. (Probably as a result of the ever-so-hip 80's changing societal attitudes) Those dramas represent the very best that television sci-fi had to offer, even on low budgets, shot on video with 16mm film inserts. They were flawed, and still we loved it... because we knew how to suspend our disbelief.

Today's breed of programme makers, although largely familiar with the era to which I am referring, have rejected this format, and now have an addiction to making everything look like it was shot on film.

How ironic that a 90 minute LIVE programme was processed to look like it was shot on film..... BADLY.

Coupled with the appalling location work at some disused MOD base ( think), this represented the biggest disappointment of the year so far.

Those of you who liked "Eldorado" would have felt right at home here. Due to the nature of the placing all the locations in a single, huge, concrete building (with the odd exterior from out the same building), there was no sound treatment and everywhere echoed all to hell.

It was OBVIOUSLY the same building no matter where you looked, and that ruined it for me utterly. That and the fact that it SEEMED to be live..... no sense of time passing was communicated at all.

No effects, no risks, no fun.

Some of the lead performances were excellent, but a good many were stagey and forced. I expect the pressure of a live broadcast rattled some of the actors.

The live episodes of Coronation Street and The Bill recently were more believable than this.

What a complete waste of time, money and effort! 1/10


I haven't seen such a mess as this on the BBC in a long time.

The script is straight from the pioneering 1953 TV series, when spying on earth from a satellite was a futuristic idea, and travelling in a spacecraft 500,000 miles from Earth was a step into the unknown.

But crazily, it is updated to the 21st century, where all this is massively anachronistic.

The production is also 1950s-style. It is shot in live action (much was made of this at the time, but what does it add?), hand-held cameras are artlessly handled, the sets and cast are both dreadfully impoverished, e.g. Mission Control consists of three people in a bunker with a couple of laptop PCs! The woman in Mission Control takes over as the sole nurse in the hospital room, etc, etc.

In a genuine 1950s production you could live with all this, of course - or perhaps if it was a spoof on the 1950s. But this is apparently intended as a serious drama! It didn't work for me.


It's a drama that slowly turns into a sharp comedy. Even though you never forget the seriousness of the situation, you start enjoying the sequence and the slight turns of the plot. It reflects the impacts of faith and some ways to pursue it, and it never fails to deliver a touch of reality in a subtle way, even if some situations are a little overacted ... it was a joy to see it


After St. Jude appears in Esperanza's oven, she sets out to find her daughter, who died under mysterious circumstances. The journey forces Esperanza to challenge her own beliefs and face her fears in order to be reunited with her beloved daughter.

The film is full of humor, sorrow, oddball characters, bizarre situations and danger. Through it all is an underlying message of the power that love has to change us all in the most unexpected ways.

A visual treat too, "Santitos" paints a beautiful, funny and compassionate picture of Mexico. But director Springall doesn't isolate his message. We all know at least one of the characters, and have probably visited similar places. This connection to the world outside of Esperanza, Veracruz and Mexico is what manages to touch us all.


In Mexico, the very religious woman Esperanza (Dolores Heredia) has just lost her teenager daughter Blanca (Maya Zapata) in a simple throat surgery. The girl contracted an unknown virus, and had to be buried in a sealed closed coffin. While cooking at home, Esperanza sees the image of São Judas Tadeu projected on the dirty oven of her stove, who tells her that she shall look for her daughter. Esperanza, in her mind, believes the doctor sold her virgin daughter to some brothel and decides to look for her in many whorehouses in her town, in Tijuana and in Los Angeles. She confesses every vision she had and what she did to Padre Salvador (Fernando Toree Laphame), who advises her about how to she should have proceeded. Her journey begins in Mexico and ends in Los Angeles, where she meets the fighter Ángel (Alberto Estrella). They fall in love for each other. The end of this funny story is not corny. This film is one of the most intelligent comedies I have ever seen. Beginning with the name of each character: Esperanza means `hope'; Blanca means `white', the symbol of purity; Padre Salvador means `priest who saves'; Los Angeles means `the angels'; Paloma means `dove', the symbol of peace; Ángel means `angel'. Further, there are many jokes with saints, but all of them very respectful. The confessions of Esperanza, always after some confusion, are also hilarious. However, the beliefs of Esperanza are very respected until the last scene. She begins very fragile, but in the end she finds love and accepts the death of her daughter, although keeping her faith. The story, although being a love and hope story, is not corny. I liked it a lot. My vote is eight.


Consider Esperanza Diaz, a young widow who must deal with the death of her teen aged daughter Blanca. She is inconsolable, to say the least. Esperanza discovers one day the image of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes, in the door of her grimy oven, which she has neglected because she has no Easy-off cleaner. The saint speaks to her and tells her Blanca is alive. Esperanza runs to the church to tell it to Father Salvador, who goes along trying to appease the distraught woman.

Esperanza, who shares a house with another woman, Soledad, knows Blanca's death doesn't make sense. The girl went into the hospital for a minor procedure and ends up dead, under mysterious circumstances. Her body is never released to Esperanza because supposedly it can spread a certain type of virus. In trying to see Blanca's doctor, Esperanza is told he no longer practices in the hospital.

When St. Jude appears again, he tells her about a pink house where Blanca is kept against her wishes. The house happens to be in Tijuana, a far away place from her small town in Veracruz. Esperanza decides to follow her hunch and ends up in the northern border city. In Tijuana she gets a run around, and she ends up in a series of situations that involve prostitution, something that she does against he will because she is determined to find her daughter.

Her quest takes her to Los Angeles, a city that proves to be not too friendly to Esperanza, but in which she ends up finding love when she meets a wrestling star that falls in love with her. Esperanza, who decides to go back to Veracruz finally gets a vision of Blanca in a mirror on a wall of her house. When the wrestler shows up in her town, she decides to take the chance, not before ripping the wall where she can see Blanca's image.

Alejandro Springall, the director of this wonderfully entertaining film, shows a natural talent for bringing together all the elements and make it work. The film is based on a novel by Maria Amparo Escandon, who also appears briefly in the film. "Santitos" made quite an impression when it was presented at the Sundance Film Festival. The film mixes superstition with an adventure. The second half of the film is a road movie as Esperanza sets out to bring Blanca home.

Dolores Heredia does a splendid job as Esperanza. She gives an inspired performance and holds the picture together. This sunny actress should be seen more often because she proves to be a natural in front of the camera. Others in the film include Damian Bichir, in a small role. Alberto Estrella, Roberto Cobo and Ana Berta Espin contribute to enhance the film.

"Santitos" merits a view and it's a shame it didn't get a wider distribution in this country.


This is really an excellent movie. I was very surprised to read the great reviews it got in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Dallas Morning News, New York Daily News, Time Out, LA Weekly, Movie Maker, etc. Incredible reviews appeared on most newspapers in Spain as well. I highly reccomend to see this fun picture becauser the story is unique, the acting superb, and the light-hearted way of telling this story is unforgettable. Don't miss this classic


Alejandro Springall's movie SANTITOS (LITTLE SAINTS) is a pure joy to watch. An allegory of a woman's search to find herself dressed in the symbolism of her religious faith, it's somewhat akin to Paolo Coelho's novella "The Alchemist" in spirit. Esperanza's plight to find her daughter Blanca (Maya Zapata) whom she believes is not dead is really a ruse to get her out of the strict confines of her home. The equivalent of a MacGuffin, we know at a gut level Blanca is clearly dead, but in Esperanza's mind, she is not because she has just seen the apparition of San Judas Tadeo within her oven. And in Latin-American culture, once a saint appears, you have to listen and act accordingly; after all, saints are all-knowing and have miracles to perform. For Esperanza, a miracle would be to be reunited with Blanca, but what she ignores is that saints and spirits work in special ways and put our love and devotion to the test. Visually a feast for the eyes, SANTITOS is equal parts magic realism, equal parts adventure, equal parts comedy, and equal parts visual surrealism, most notably in a sequence involving Esperanza walking into a brothel owned by a Doña Trini (Roberto Cobo) who has a surprise involving the worship of a cow. Dolores Heredia makes you believe in what otherwise would be madness. That she has to go so far away from home to find what was always there and come back a more complete person -- with a kind man in tow played by the masculine, regal Alberto Estrella -- is part of the fun this movie is.


Santitos has many wonderful things: great photography by Xavier Perez Grobet, some good acting, particularly by Demian Bichir, and the supporting actors, excellent art direction, a nice sense of humor, a good music score by Carlo Nicolau. Its weaknesses are a wooden performance by the actress who plays Esperanza, the main character. With a better, more expressive actor, this movie could have soared, since she has to carry the bulk of it. She's lovely to look at, but her performance lacks character. The story drags on a little bit too long and doesn't really seem to have much of a point. As is typical in Mexico it seems that women can only be either saints or whores -- and the novel and screenplay were written by a woman! However, it's a promising first film by Alejandro Springall and will undoubtedly delight fans of the "Like Water for Chocolate" school of magical realism.


I really wanted to like this film. The advertising really fooled me--I believed I was going to see another "Como Agua Para Chocolate." Wrong!

The movie starts wonderfully. Esperanza's refuses to believe her recently deceased daughter is really dead and starts to search for her. First in her beautiful little town in the Veracruz state of Mexico, then Tijuana, followed by LA, and back to her hometown.

Her journey was supposed to show how Esperanza changes and becomes a stronger person, but the lead actress--Dolores Heredia--was unable to do so. This is not so much her fault as she is quite appealing: I believe that the directors development of side characters and subplots take the focus away from the character development of Esperanza.

This film is not without merit. The cinematography by Xavier Perez Grobet is top-notch, as well as the art direction. This film is a step in the right direction for contemporary Mexican film, but it still has a way to go.


OK its not a oscar winner.its a Michael Winner.but this comedy has a great double act in Caine and Moore infact this is the first time i seen Moore do a comedy and he is quite excellent.a good supporting cast the script is more carry on than anything else and whats wrong with that.id sooner watch this than Trainspotting.


No, this isn't the biopic of Jim Bowen & Tony Green but a good comedy with dual roles for Caine & Moore. Sometimes its good because its funny, sometimes its so bad its good. The pairing of the two British acting giants is worth 90 minutes of anyones time. This movie tries to hark back to the classic British comedies of old & succeeds in parts. If you take this film in the spirit it was made then you should be laughing & groaning in equal measures!


A lot of people who have seen this film will wonder why 10 out of 10.

However, having watched this film almost 12 times I never tire of it. Ridiculous quotes and incredibly bad acting from all involved make it so much fun. And this is what movies are about right? Simple setup - Roger Moore and Michael Caine's ex-partner conman characters are almost identical to two partnered scientists - HOW CONVENIENT! And so they set up a plan to steal the scientists secret diamond stash all the time bumbling through some goofy moments in order to set up the crime.

Written by the creative team behind the dire TV sitcom "Birds Of A Feather" I was surprised the film has some quick witty one-liners. It also has some cringe inducing scenes including what I believe is Roger Moore trying it on with his own daughter. Michael Caine is the first to point out some of the terrible films he's made so you can't really have a go but his accents are hideous.

All in all I recommend this film to anyone who just wants a laugh even if it is at the expense of two fine actors.

"Has anyone ever said you look like Mel Gibson?" Baddie shakes head. "I'm not surprised."


Yes, this film has been put together really badly It also has some terrible editing (1967...(moore mouths eight! Look closely, you will see!) Make-up is bad Directing is amateurish However, the film did entertain me. Caine and Moore must cringe when they ever stumble on this! But the tackiness was what made it great. The film tries so hard to be American in parts and it does fall flat on its face, but if someone like Quentin Tarantino had done it, it would have tied your brain in knots...In summary, this is a film for simpletons everywhere. Give it a try, yes It will probably make you cringe, but in one way or another, it will make you smile...Rather like Portugal getting knocked out of world cup. This film is Marmite...You either love it or hate it


I think I laughed once at this film, watched it when I was ten or eleven, because it has a scene where one dog humps another.

Other than that, I'd rather stab my eyes out with a biro than be forced to sit through it again. Go watch Monty Python instead, hell, even Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is better than this.


This movie is supremely inventive in the humour stakes. Roger Moore and Michael Caine wearing kilts! Wearing kilts in the vicinity of log tossers. Naturally, they are going to receive a log up the kilt at some point.

Sure enough, the moment arrives as someone lifts a log as they both straddle it. The log goes up the kilts. The audience roll about in floods of tears, each receiving their own personal log up the kilt agony.

A few minutes pass and we are treated to another log up the kilt victim. The humour then progresses to another person receiving a log up the kilt.

The final scene involves several people straddling a log only to have someone lift up the log, giving the victims a log up the kilt.


In the beginning of the movie we already get impressed with the beautiful photography. The camera catches some scenes not so common on our daily routine, we start to enter Estamira's world.

First, her madness: She says some concepts that seem out of reality and belonging to someone unreasonable person who's lost in life; maybe the long time she had spent on that amount of waste turned her into someone badly ill.

Throughout the movie, her words get in contrast with impressive sceneries. Nature and the human waste create an impression of dystopia and induce deep reflections about humanity and all we have done to ourselves.

Although in a poor and dirty place with inhuman conditions, we can see compassion and fraternity. Her words, although sometimes senseless, start to make some sense (if we take her living context as a start).

She is in fact ill; she is psycho. Her hallucinations go on through mystics and hate about catholicism. Se is sure that she is blessed with superior powers. She has hard pains, "it's the remote control" she says.

The documentary, then, focus on her personal history, her daughter, her son (a religion seeker), her "lost" daughter, the abandon of her husband, the rapes she suffered, her frustration with her believes. Her psychopathy starts to seem reasonable and to touch us deeply. In her mind, ideas and memories get mixed and form new concepts.

Despite her living conditions, she is happy and satisfied. Maybe it's an illusion, but her life is colored. And the camera shows that: when she talks about herself, the black and white becomes vivid and plain.

And we start to think: she is in a so sad and depressing reality (comparing to ours), but what she says about life, future, politics, religion, believes and perspectives... though based on an ill mind, makes a lot of sense to us. It's even revealing. Maybe the world is crazy. We are in a chaos. And Estamira, who is out of the economic system, can broadcast it.

Or not. Maybe we are so deeply lost in our normality and empty standard way of living, that we believe in anyone who says that can save us.


It's an obscure film, shot in 2004, only released in the movie theaters now.

It's the story of a 72-year-old schizophrenic woman who has been earning a living, in the last 20 years, in Rio's city dumpster. Like hundreds of others, she awaits the huge trucks with garbage and scavenges it in search of material to recycle, sell or keep to herself. She says that's the happiest she's ever been, because she had no luck in the world prior to that. She's seen giggling with her friends, flirting with another - most likely, just as unstable as she is -, and remarking about her role in the universe.

The cinematography - yes, the city dumpster - is amazing. The opening scene shows plastic blacks flying among vultures, and from then on, grainy shots of people, like ants, climbing the piles of garbage, the red sunset, telling a story of pollution, a black river of a putrid liquid with gas coming out of the bubbles, the dogs and the horse against the sunset, side-by-side with a burning garbage can.

The comedy relief of the movie, and also some of its most insightful moments, comes with her cussing loudly at God. When one of her grandchildren mentions we all come from God, she says "shove God up your! God rapist God thief God that never helped me or anyone else! Your mother came from my bosom, nowhere else! God rapist, incompetent, mean!!" It's so outrageous, the whole audience was laughing out loud. Her only son, very religious, fears she is possessed with a malignant spirit, so he won't visit her anymore. The other daughter, not religious, gives her all support.

The story of her life is so sad that it can weakened by placing labels. They are always avoided in the movie, and her whole life is unveiled slowly, so that we are led to believe her when she says that the city dumpster was the best thing in her life. She is proud of what she does, proud that she built her house with what she found at the dumpster, and says that everybody in the world needs Estamira.

She had a daughter while living in the dumpster. Her older son decided to give the 6yo kid for an informal adoption with a loving, middle-class family. The girl is now 21, beautiful, and she says: "I feel resentment because I was not raised by my mother. I have bad memories of the dumpster, everything is bad there, but my mother raised my two siblings, why not me? We would be hungry sometimes, but I would survive, I know I would, and we'd never be separated".

The movie started small, but word of mouth is working so much that, on a Thursday, the theater was crowded, and people applauded at the end. Despite the punches in the stomach you get while watching it, it's in fact an uplifting movie, in that you see the love inside her family, the blissful ignorance of her friends at the dumpster, the fact that she laughs at herself and wants to go on living to fulfill her "mission".

Watch it if you have the chance and realize there is happiness where you least expect it.


Estamira is a poet and she lives intermittently in a garbage dump. This film is long and may induce claustrophobia during several scenes, but it is absolutely thrilling because of Estamira. There are few playwrights or screenwriters or novelists that could match her use and facility with language. She is crazy and fierce and totally real. And she knows it and you know it and the distance between you and her is barely measurable.

Do not be dismayed by the first and last songs that bookend this film. While the music of these songs is fine, the joyous 'primitive' singing smacks of bad 80s world music.

And even with this unfortunate lapse in taste this film is as perfect as any I've ever seen.


I was very interested in seeing this film based completely on the synopsis, since I couldn't find a review ANYWHERE online. I went into it pretty cold, not knowing exactly what to expect. The beginning of the film really grabbed me - the film was grainy, black and white, and the imagery was poetic and disturbing. This is the story of Estamira... sort of... I wont go into the detail of her life and what we see of it, because you can see that in the movie and read about it in the plot summary... some of the shots in this movie were spectacular... especially in the first half, and the final sequence in the water.. but there were points where her ranting and raving became almost painful to endure.. contradictory, angry, and occasionally insightful, Estamira is a rather unique and confusing person and her story is heartbreaking, although it is difficult to empathize given her temperament. I was hoping they would go into more detail with some of the other people featured in the film - mainly her friends at the landfill, but it was mainly dedicated to her. The main this I can say is that its a good film, but if they had have cut it down to about 45 minutes, it would have been superb. I'm looking forward to seeing what the director does next.


I've seen this movie at a festival and i just hate it. I've seen lots of movies in black-white, or documentary etc. but none of them was as boring as this movie. It was not a movie actually, it was just a crazy woman talking about how much she hates the God and how to make pasta by using craps... It was like, a torture, misery. I was like "please just stop" but the movie was not just so boring but also so long. There are lots of scenes that has nothing to say... There is no point... Once i was at a "movie workshop" and there was a guy teaching writing a scenario and he told us that "a movie is about the visions, it's about what you show people and what they see. If someone talks talks talks about life etc. it's not a movie. It's a video that you shot, but not a movie." I wish, someone has told this to the director of this movie... I hate it!!!


The only mistake in regard to this performance is that Ray Liotta did not receive any nods or awards for his performance as Charlie Metcalf. His portrayal of a terminal and morally damaged patient, in search of - and finally receiving - absolution, was flawlessly painful and poignant. This episode is now in my cache for use in class, to illustrate just how perfect a portrayal of an imperfect character can be. As a reviewer and writer, it is often difficult to hold to the suspension of disbelief, an angle is wrong, the lighting is off, a cameraman's shadow is cast in a scene . . . Rarely is this student of film moved to emotional demonstrations during television dramas, but in this case, Mr. Liotta, thanks for the tears; they came from the depth of my soul. -Maura Coghlan Richardson


Ray Liotta brilliantly performs the alcoholic being treated in the ER. Of course behind each alcoholic is a story. Life, actually. Liotta makes it his story from a drunk nobody likes (or worse: loves) to a guy who's life slipped trough his fingers and as we get to know the background, we can relate to.

Liotta's acting is superb and I was glued to the screen. His transformations are beautiful and he can play the part with finesse and believability. Very rightfully he won an Emmy for his performance. Bravo and bravo!

Director Christopher Chulack directed this episode and what a talented and passionate guy he is. Stunning dying-scenes of Charlie in a place that exists in his memory/soul/heart layered with voices from the ER. Bravo too.

Of course Liotta deserves a major guest role in such a good series and not to have waltz in for the part of a taxi driver who broke his toe whilst hitting the brakes to hard (just an example). I'm very pleased that was chosen for a character who was on screen for the whole episode. For the first time I know off, all the regulars stepped down to support a guest role. So whoever had this idea: thank you very, very much!

ER is broadcast on Dutch National TV where commercials are not allowed in the middle of any series or films so I could watch it in peace and without being interrupted. Very, very good.

Pieter.


Let me start off by noticing the obvious - Ray Liotta is still one of the most underrated actors there is. His each and every performance was really mad nice, going from stellar to above average, but never seeming to cross the borderline of boredom. Now...in mid and late 90's his career was kinda stagnating but he reinvented himself in Narc (one of my favorites...not so much as a movie in whole, but for the way it was shot, cinematic photography and Liotta's portrayal of Lt. Oak) and kept doing smaller independent movies really choosing his roles more carefully this time around...And I guess i was genuinely surprised to see him in ER. I don't even watch ER, but i saw his name on opening credits so I decided to sit through it...and i was stunned. That role itself should earn him each and every accolade he can possibly get. That was pretty much "acting in a nutshell", an Acting 101, really. I'm actually pretty calm and don't tend to get emotional...more of a cynical humor kind of guy...but this just left me staring good couple of minutes after the show was finally done. There wasn't even the usual sappy ER writing, even the script was remarkable and perfectly tailored for guest star(s). Maybe I'm not the most objective person to comment on it since I really like those complicated, layered, troubled-but-good-at-heart characters, yet, this one was amazing...it's just a shame that this gem will probably be slept on since it isn't any kind of blockbuster or even an indie movie that could shake some spirits. Just glad that Emmy "judges" didn't sleep on this one. Kudos for the episode, and for Liotta's stellar performance.