I thought that this was a pretty good movie. I do have a problem with the origin of the outbreak apparently being a lone-nut, presumably some Christian fanatic who is carrying out some fantasy of bringing the grim story of the Revelations into reality.

I have no doubt that there are lunatics out there who would do just that if they had a chance. I just don't see how such an individual would procur any quantity of smallpox from a corrupt Russian scientist from the Soviet BW program.

What I think would be a much more plausible scenario would have been a group like al-Qaeda procuring stocks of a BW weapon with the help of some elements of Russian organized crime. Yet I can't help but think that the agent of choice would be something like Marburg, Tularemia, or weaponized anthrax. Those BW agents kill extremely fast and very dramatically but they aren't as unpredictably and explosively contagious.

The bottom line is that despite the anthrax letters, I am much more scared of an organized group like al-Qaeda sprinkling a couple of kilograms of weaponized, inhalational anthraw over New York City than the scenario described in this movie.

That being said, I do hope that the civil defense planners here and around the world, watch it and take note.

I think that it would have been much more likely ending to find a Koran with a verse from it underlined given the manifest terrorist threat that we face than a Bible. But something tells me that in this politically correct era in which we live, that would have been unthinkable --even though al-Qaeda would cheerfully wipe us off the map with any weapon they could field.


Radio Days has got to be one of my absolute favorite films of all time. To me, it's a film that balances story, characters and atmosphere better than just about any other. It's truly a great work of art, and a very, very underrated one. The best thing about it is how Allen's love for his subject, the romantic nostalgia he feels, translates so eloquently to the screen. You've also got to hand it to the cast. Diane Weist, Julie Kavner, Mia Farrow, Josh Mostel, a briefly-glimpsed Jeff Daniels, and a young Seth Green all give great performances that are right out of the period, yet instantly recognizable. Allen had Santo Loquasto, his art director, do a bang-up job on creating the world of early-1940s Rockaway, New York, and Jeffrey Kurland's costumes help immensely. Particularly note-worthy is Carlo Di Palma's stunning cinematography. The colours, the smoky nightclubs and soundstages, the dimly-lit nighteries and the dazzling rooftop set come to life like few sets do in films. And then there's the music. That dazzling array of classic music, from one of the best periods for it in American history. Allen's decision to use only music from that time might sound cliche, but he's definatly justified here. And there's always the Radio Show Themes piece by Dick Hyman (I'm always by that name) that accompanies many of the scenes. That piece of music alone is worth seeing the film. As you can probably tell, I love this film simply for the fact that it's such a charming, enchanting, beautiful film. It's one I'd show my children, even the nude dancing scene, had I any children to show it to. Woody Allen's turn in the films he's made lately (as of 2003) are, to me, pretty depressing and perverse, with none of the charm, life and humor that works like Radio Days symbolize, Sweet and Lowdown notwithstanding. Hopefully, more films like this gem are on the horizon.


"Radio Days" is an absolute joy. I love remembrances, and Woody's look back at his WWII childhood glows with warmth. It is snuggly and cozy and it made me want to go back to the 1940s, which I never wanted to do before. It is an extremely sentimental movie, but the sentiment is balanced by Woody's light touch and by his humor, and so you can enjoy basking in the bittersweet without feeling like you've been played. All the vignettes are evenly balanced and nothing is given an overt emotional spin, and I think it's the distance that makes the movie work so well. If we had been closer to the characters, it would have risked sappiness. This way, they're closer to relatives that we knew only as very young children - and we can remember certain things in a certain light... I wonder what Woody feels about "Radio Days" because it looks to have been made by a man with a huge heart. And, of course, it is very, very funny throughout. And the old 30s and 40s soundtrack and the amber-tinted cinematography add to the feel.


If you are looking for the normal amount of big laughs from a Woody Allen film, then you will be disappointed here. It's not that kind of film.

I was anything but disappointed, but I knew what the film was all about before I saw it. Actually, what drew me to it was that I had read where this was a wonderful visual film, filled with rich colors and great set designs. It did not let me down. This is a great visual tribute to the 1940s, to be exact from 1938 to 1944. A real treat for the eyes.

The story centers around a Jewish family in Queens and the importance that radio shows had in that day-and-age. Also profiled in here are some of those radio performers.

It does have laughs but not as many as the normal Allen movie because the idea of this is simply to be a nostalgic piece, mainly Allen's tribute to his own family days of growing up, what it was like around his house.

It was interesting to see Seth Green playing Woody as a youngster with flaming red hair. The most interesting person, however, was Diane Wiest who played a man-chasing sister-in-law. The film gives you a real flavor of the period, of New York and of a Jewish family.

Overall, it's simply a nice film....and gorgeous to look at. Sometimes I think some of Allen's work is overrated but, boy, here is one that is definitely underrated.


I thought I was being original when I made the connection between Woody Allen's "Radio Days" and Federico Fellini's "Amarcord," but I was being naive. The parallels are so transparent it is of no surprise that most of the IMDB reviewers (and I imagine those others as well) caught the similarity.

And it's a good similarity - "Radio Days" is as successful in transporting the viewer to a different place and time as "Amarcord" was. It also cements my conclusion that Woody Allen is the only director who "spoofs" great art films and artistic styles, confirmed by his tributes to Ingmar Bergman and German Expressionists.

All that aside, "Radio Days" is, second of all, a look at Allen's childhood memories weaved together by radio. It's the story of his family (his large and extended family and neighborhood personages), their likes, dislikes, relationships and favorite radio shows. They are inextricably connected as genetic members of a family, but also more intangibly linked by radio broadcasts, to which they listen to individually as well as collectively. They have favorite songs and shows - each favorite reflecting the personality of a given character. They also share great love for one another, though they quibble like all human beings do. In fact, that tender quibbling, love and loss and understanding is what makes Allen's characters come to life so successfully - no wonder he speaks of them with warmth.

What "Radio Days" is about first of all and foremost, is nostalgia. The film would only be a heartwarming family tale and nothing more if it were not "recollected" by Woody Allen, the narrator. His role in the film (in which he never physically appears) is that of a story-teller. He transports the audience to his memories consciously, mixing present reflections with the unadulterated spirit of his memories. And it is he, not the characters in the film as much, who experiences the nostalgia, the central theme of "Radio Days."

In narrating his memories, Allen is able to distance himself from them temporally. He is telling a tale that borders on fantasy, such as that on whose form nostalgic memories take place. There is a bittersweet yearning for the past and a realization that memories must inevitably fade, change, yield to time's destructiveness. Re-telling them not only reveals how one thinks life once was (usually painted over with warmth and pleasantness), but also oneself and the knowledge that these times are no longer physically accessible. How we recollect our past tells us of us as much as it does of the past. In "Radio Days" that past is warm and Allen's yearning for that warmth and childish innocence is what pervades the film so well giving it its nostalgic quality.

And nostalgia, the film seems to suggest, is a feeling worth experiencing. If one can glance back at his life and feel a longing towards the past, a warmth emanating from his memories, then he remembers life as having been kind to him. Even if the details flee from the mind (as they inevitably do) and only the feelings inspired by hazy memories remain. And that, if nothing else, is not only comforting, but also meaningful.


Radio Days (1987)- written, directed, and narrated by Allen:

What a beautiful, kind, gentle, ironic, warm, sentimental (in a very good way and yes, I am talking about Woody Allen's movie, that's right) yet perfectly balanced delight. It is a series of sketches about young Joe (young Allen, of course, played by Seth Green - that was a surprise), an adolescent in Brooklyn, NY during 1930s-1940s who was passionately in love with radio which was a king. The film is a tribute to the magical radio days and the myths and legends about radio personalities, the memory of a grown man who never forgot where he came from, the love letter to his always fighting and arguing ("I mean, how many people argue over oceans?") but loving relatives and a very funny comedy (the way only Allen's comedy can be). It is the film where pretty like a doll and painfully naive Sally (Mia Farrow) asks who Pearl Harbor is? Where gorgeous Diane Keaton sings and Diane Wiest, his beloved Aunt Bea never gives up hope of one true love. He never told us if she found it...

"I never forgot that New Year's Eve when Aunt Bea awakened me to watch 1944 come in. I've never forgotten any of those people or any of the voices we would hear on the radio. Though the truth is, with the passing of each New Year's Eve, those voices do seem to grow dimmer and dimmer."

The Radio days are gone but thanks to Allen, the voices of the times passed are still clear and sound and they always will be.

9/10


This is a wonderful wonderful movie that exemplifies the phrase, "misty watercolored memories." It is a joy to watch and listen to. The era before and during WWII, however, was anything but wonderful. Radio Days presents a time when America was dealing with the Great Depression and its after effects and the horrible event that was World War II. Since the man narrating the memories was only a boy then, it is altogether fitting and proper that he see things as a child; for as he states in one scene, "our conversation turned from Nazis to more important things,like girls." No movies, except this one, that I recall, are able to deal with this critical age in American history without conveying the tragic time that it was.

I would like to think this family was really Woody Allen's, but it is probably a work of fiction, like his other pieces. But how tremendous that he can create (or remember) these people. As I watched it, one thought that kept recurring was that these were not "beautiful" manufactured people like we see in the media today; they had big hips and were fat and poor and... and none of that mattered. They were real. They were believable. You can't watch this movie without wondering what happened to them, did Aunt Bee find a husband? You cared about this family and personally, I wished they were mine.

The vignettes were sad and sweet. My favorite was poor departed Kirby Kyle; at least he had heart! And Leonard; and "donations for the promotion of a state in Palestine." So many memories that make us a part of a family most people never had. The viewer belongs to this warm and loving group.

Something has been lost with the concept of "nuclear family," with the lonely big houses and empty hours and unshared hopes and sorrows. Radio Days reminds us that having someone to experience life with is a treasure and a blessing, despite whacks on the head, martians, and fish, "That man always brings home fish!"

And oh, the music!

This is Woody Allen's masterpiece.


This movie shouts one word: WARMTH. The colors, the plot, the characters, they are all wonderfully warm.

I've watched this movie with senior citizens who were around in the forties. I once watched it with a Jewish guy who grew up on Long Island (albeit in the early 30's, not the 40's). All comments were the same: THIS was life in New York during wartime.

Vietnam was my war, so this era was a mystery to me. However, any time a genius like Woody Allen can create a film that not only makes me and my rowdy friends laugh, but gets guffaws from my dear old Mom as well, it deserves a little fanfare.

I didn't even mention the solid gold music.

See this film at once!


Woody's best " memory" piece has great set designs, a sad and funny script and the usual great, well chosen cast, including a very young Seth Green playing Allen as a boy. Diane Wiest and Julie Kavner excel strongly in the female leads, Allen's voice narrates the whole picture, and Mia Farrow squeaks deliciously as a bimbo cigarette girl who gets a culture make-over. This is the only Allen movie that both Farrow and Diane Keaton appear in (she has a very brief cameo singing a song in a night club.) The final scene on top of the roof is almost bittersweet, altho it is nice to see a landscape filled with wide eyed people, before the world was dominated by television. The story becomes even more poignant as you age. Watch it repeatedly over different stages of your life...


In my opinion, Radio Days is right up there with Annie Hall though it's different in that it's following several people's lives. Woody doesn't act in this, but his narration is excellent.

He takes the wonderful old songs and commercials from that time and weaves them into the story. I was completely captivated.

It's not a "laugh a minute" type film, but it also gets you thinking. Nevertheless, it has some hilarious scenes. Check out the Jewish fasting holiday scene. I've watched it at least 6 times and I still laugh. Also the scene with Mia Farrow's character was superb. One of my favorite lines is when she tells a top radio producer in her high-pitched nasal voice, "Jeez. We can't keep meeting like this. In the backs of cars, movie theaters and stalled elevators. You're gonna lose your respect for me!" I love this film.


It is an nostalgic trip down memory lane. Micheal Tucker and Julie Kavner work off of one another and are perfectly paired for the cracks that they make off of each other. It is one of Diane Weist's best performances. She is one of Woody's favorite actress' especially when she appeared in Hannah and Her Sisters. Supporting cast superb; Josh Mostel extremely funny as Uncle Abe; and the cameos by old radio people were really enjoyable.

I knew Diane Keaton sings but I didn't know how well until she did that number for New Year's Party.

Perfect for the New Year viewing and nostalgic at the same time; this is one of my favorite films of the past twenty years. No matter how may times I watch it I always enjoy it.


I was born and raised in Suburban Texas but this is one of my favorites.It is by no means a New York story that Non-New Yoikers can't understand and a lot of us Provincials resent the very provincial thinking of a few classless fools in the Big Apple. This is a delightful piece of fun. It is a joy to watch. The cast is put to superb use in this heartfelt tribute to the simple glorious joys of an ordinary childhood. Like most autobiographical works this film has a resonance that isn't present in other works. As Crooklyn is one of Spike Lee's best works so is this one of Woody Allen's best. The color is lushly aged and beautifully underscored with the delightfully nostalgic music of the forties airwaves. Even though I am only in my early fifties this film reminds me of that simpler time that perhaps never was. It shows a healthy family going though the most fascinating of all things, namely ordinary living. This is the kind of "reality" that should be on T.V. instead of the dreck the major networks are commiting financial suicide with. I watch this every time its on. Its one of those films that helps you understand how different and yet the same families are. If a person doesn't understand this film it's definitely a case of "something missing". The radio stories are the only fantastic aspect of the piece and they perfectly underscore the basic reality of the story. Movies like this, Meet Me in St. Louis, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, I Remember Mama, Life with Father, and Crooklyn are essentials.


In this day of fake movies, films dripping with 'Hollywood sauce', violence, etc., I found this film to be quite refreshing. Creators of heart-felt films tend to make them extra-sappy, which also seems to defeat the purpose (at least for me). This movie avoided all these 'traditional' pitfalls. "The Last Dance" felt real to me...not far-fetched. It was simple and to the point. It reflected on things that really mean something on this planet; there was no wasting time on silliness. To top it off, the ending had a nice metaphysical touch (always scoring big points with me). Yes, you really can see good films without having to pay for cable TV. They may not come around all that often, yet the occasional meaningful movie will stick with you. Sometimes less is more.


It's an ode for good teachers! It's a film that asks you to slow down and inhale the best scents of life's memories quoting Cicero's line about actors leaving the stage quietly after achieving their best! It's a film that brings to mind Mazursky's "Harry and Tonto" and Bruce Beresford's "Tender Mercies".

The story is great and performances real. Maureen O'Hara in her eighties is really wonderful to look at (compare her withered hands to her great face) and to hear. Her enunciation of spoken English is a treat for the ears.

The film is more of a play on film but the editing is so smooth that you feel one scene weaves in to the next. The film does not stun you but endears you psychologically. The film involved the work of three writers at three stages. Probably Beth Polson had much to do with making the story good for cinema, may be it was Dalene Young. The film is great because of the contribution of three good writers, a charming Maureen O'Hara and fine editing. The direction of Kevin Dowling and the cinematography of Larry Reibman, though not outstanding, was above average.


I caught this movie on Lifetime, but it had the Hallmark network feel to it. Sometimes this type of film can be overly sentimental, but I found this one to be wonderful as it emphasized the importance of taking time to love one another. Maureen O'Hara, at 80-something and looking great, plays a schoolteacher who becomes involved in the life of a former student and his wife. As a woman whose great love ended before the relationship could fully develop, she imparts what she has learned to them about what's really important in this world, and what really stays with those we leave behind when we go into the next one.

O'Hara is really inspirational. Her voice and acting are strong and her no-nonsense portrayal keeps "The Last Dance" from being cloying in any way. You really grow to love this woman and all she stands for. The flashback scenes are well cast.

A nice movie to catch, especially around the holidays.


The style of Maureen O'Hara is unmatched,even today among the best in the business. and there are so many very talented people in the industry. Her classic beauty & comedic humor always has set her apart from others. The Irish temperament,at times,thick accent,especially when angered, her natural beauty, are what set her apart from other women of her generation. She is of a timeless beauty that is so rare these days. I'll never forget her in "MaClintock". I loved that movie so much in my childhood, I couldn't wait for it to come out so I could purchase it,myself.Then, it came out on DVD. That did it. I bought it as a collector's edition. We watch it often. This world has been a much better, enjoyable world with her in it. I am of Irish descent myself,& my family is from Dublin,Ireland, where Ms. O'Hara is from. Though, I've never been, I will always call Ireland the Home of My family. Thank You Maureen O'Hara for all the lovely memories.


Maureen O'Hara was one of the most spectacular beauties in Hollywood history. When she made "The Last Dance," she was 82--and still a stunning woman. Because many of her films were action films and westerns, it's easy to forget that O'Hara was also an excellent actress. Here she plays a retired Latin teacher--yes, Latin was once taught in public schools, folks--who reconnects with a former student who is now a male nurse. The plot is reminiscent of "Good Morning, Miss Dove," with Jennifer Jones, another beauty who has aged well.

The former student keeps an eye on the teacher when she leaves the hospital, and soon his family (wife and two children) becomes involved as well. The plot is interesting, and the movie is well-written and very well-acted by the cast. What could easily slide into bathos is genuinely moving as the film gradually reveals via well-integrated flashbacks the teacher's life, past as well as present. A bus trip and a day at the beach are extremely well-done.

"The Last Dance" is one of those films that really has to be seen to be appreciated; it's very quietly done but beautifully realized. When you watch O'Hara, think about what most of the current crop of "actresses" will look like and what their performances will be like when they are in their eighties--if any of them manage to maintain a career past the age of thirty.


I saw the trailer and the making of The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, I don't know, something about this film just captured me. It just seemed like a really creative story and looked like a great family film. So, I decided to go ahead and check it out today and I have to say that it really did live up to my expectations, it was a cute film for the whole family to enjoy. It's a different version of Free Willy I think, lol, sounds crazy, I know, but I think you'll agree when you see it. It's definitely a tear jerker, but one of the better films I've seen in a little while in the theater. It was made very well and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more notice, but like I said, I think I just saw something special in the story. We haven't had a Lochness monster movie, all we know is the infamous picture that has never been prove to be fake or real, and The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep tells us the story behind that picture.

Agnus is a young and lonely boy in Scotland, his father who he was very close with has just gone off into WWII to fight. His home has just been taken over by English soldiers to fight off the German's. His family has lost something too, life and laughter. But when Agnus comes across what looks like a strange rock, is actually an egg left by an Water Horse, the rarest of all creatures, there can only be one in the world at a time. But he takes care of the baby who is water bound, while protecting him from his mom and the soldiers. But when the water horse, he named Crusoe, has grown too big, he and a family friend put him in the Lochness Lake where he is spotted and is now known as the infamous Lochness Monster.

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep is truly and honestly a good film. It has such a magical touch like The Secret Garden, where it's a serious story, but it's for the family. I thought it was very well made, the visual effects are very good and not over done, which was great, because obviously the Lochness monster is going to be CGI, but they made it look so real, and so lovable, lol, like I said, I did cry, it's a tear jerker. The characters are terrific, they really found terrific actors for the roles. Alex Etel does a beautiful break out performance as Angus and was so charming. I would highly recommend The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, it's one of the best family films I have seen in a while.

8/10


When my wife dragged me to this movie I thought I'd be bored. The trailers show nothing except the little monster growing quickly and swimming around happily. What I did not expect is the wonderful, and entertaining background story set in Scotland during WWII.

Now the film has a modern frame as well as the WWII story. An old man tells two young visitors to Loch Ness what they assume is a tall tale. Frames usually don't add much to movies but in this frame is an exception.

In WWII a young boy, who doesn't know his father was lost at sea, finds a strange egg. While the egg grows into a likable, gigantic plesiosaur, a strange man, who might be a German spy, starts as caretaker of the boy's father's estate, and a gunnery unit takes over the estates grounds. The captain of the gunnery unit takes a shine to the boy's Mom, and tries to instill discipline to the boy by treating him like a drill sergeant would a recruit. Meanwhile, the new caretaker decides to keep the boy's new pet a secret. and wins the respect of the boy's mother.

Although there is no real violence in this movie there is a killer (hunter) cook and some shooting. In fact there is a scene with cannon fire that might scare young children. And of course the cook has a tough bull-dog who likes to chase things.

The characters here are well developed and the acting and cinematography is superb. This movie will not disappoint.


It is reassuring to see more and more family-oriented films being issued without everyone having to rely on the Disney and Pixar folks to carry all the weight. That said, it would have been interesting to see what Disney might have done with this story. In the end, I would highly recommend this for family viewing - it has laughs, thrills, beautiful scenery, and a heartwarming storyline that offers opportunities for family discussion.

As with most things, there are good and bad sides to this film. On the plus side, the acting is above-par by all the actors(the adult male leads look startlingly like a young Liam Neeson and a Gaelic Antonio Banderas), the location footage is gorgeous, the period "feels right", and the title namesake is very well executed and most believable. Major kudos to the special effects teams, they did a magnificent job.

On the downside, the denouement is telegraphed well in advance and comes as no surprise, and there are some unanswered questions and several plot lines end without resolution. I have a feeling a "directors cut" would probably restore studio-mandated cuts and resolve these issues. The Director, Jay Russell, has helmed other very successful films (including a little-known but personal favorite "End of the Line") which were also obviously "fiddled with" by studio decree. Such is the business of film-making.

In the end, I greatly enjoyed this film, and plan to add it to my vast collection when it is released for home viewing.


Just got back from an advanced screening of this movie and I really liked it - it isn't phenomenal or overly brilliant - but what it is is very charming and a good time for the family or couple or anyone looking for a feel good movie. The acting is well-done by the entire the "creature" is cute and believable with enough "awwwwwwww" moments, but not too much to become redundant. I read about the legend of Loch Ness when I was about 6 years old and imagined and fantasized how awesome it would be to see and witness something like that - this is probably as close as I will ever come - so in essence, I've waited 30 years for this movie - and my family and I enjoyed it very much.


Our family (2 kids in high school) went to this film Christmas night. It was a perfect wrap up to a glorious family day. The story line was told by the camera as a story should be told; with reflective moments, beautiful long scenic shots and great close-ups on some of the best character faces one can find in a pub. All of the time taken for this was appreciated by our family. The CGI was beautifully woven into the film so that it did not take away from it, but rather created the water horse to fit beautifully with the surrounding images. He/she was charming and we all root for the dream that there is a Nessie! Mum (Grammy) is British and flew Spitfires in WWII. She told of regiments taking over estates and the events in this movie matches her stories. Two small critical comments: The male/female travelers who open and close the film were far too forced and it felt like they were given the roles as friends of a director/producer? It's too bad because the opening and closing of the film felt awkward and unconnected with the rest of the charming story. There is a sequence of footage of the young lad working that repeated itself that felt like it was just looking for extra shots and couldn't find them. Having done that as an amateur, I was surprised when the pros did this! Enjoy this film. Thank-you to all who worked on it!


I have just returned from seeing The Water Horse with four of my children aged 16 to 4. We all thoroughly enjoyed it. I have to say the beginning was a little slow as Angus found the egg, but once all the characters were introduced, and Crusoe had hatched, the plot revved along. The pompous Army Captain was fun to watch! The WWII surrounds were wonderful, all the casting was excellent- no wrong notes by any of the cast. The boy playing Angus was really enjoyable to watch. It was a "children's movie" but as a forty-something adult I was swept along into the adventure and enjoyed it very much. I loved how the plot was multi-layered and plenty of tension as Crusoe comes under threat from some trigger-happy army soldiers. I have to point out that Lake Whakatipu in NZ's South Island was used for a lot of the Loch Ness scenes so should get credit from those who loved the scenery! Bravo to WETA Workshop for the realism and believability of the water horse- just gorgeous! He/she has plenty of screen time too. This is a great movie for all ages. It is sure-footed and very enjoyable!! For Kiwis watching it's fun spotting familiar faces in the supporting cast.


I saw this film this afternoon with my partner. I agree with other posters that the opening modern day scene in the pub, setting up the narrator, felt forced and false. Otherwise, what a wonderful film this was! It's a real "coming of age" story of an introverted young boy, missing his dad (off to war) terribly, and the events that help him come out of his shell and begin to interact with others. The CGI water horse was totally convincing, from newborn baby just out of the egg to full-blown adulthood. It really had a personality. The actors were convincing in their roles, too. My partner and I were brought almost to tears, in a good way, by some scenes. The ending, which I will not reveal, brought the tale full circle beautifully. If not for the jarring narrator scenes, I would have rated this film higher than I did.


Oh man! Me and my five year old son saw this movie tonight and we had a rollicking good time..... it started off slow and surprisingly somber ( the kids dad is off at war; he's lonely, sad ).... however, once the water horse itself grows and is released into the loch, the movie turns into magic! Seeing the full-grown Cruscoe rise from the depths of the water had us both wildly cheering out loud, and the scene when the kid rode on his back and went for an underwater sea romp was pure celluloid gold -- beautifully filmed and an AMAZING RIDE!!!! Furthermore, while the "drama" at the beginning lagged, I actually find myself kind of into the anti-war drama towards the end. All in all, a most satisfying night out at the movies!


Just re watched this film with parents on Blu Ray with surround sound connected. I have to say even at 19 years of age i love this film so much.

Very entertaining for all the family with some characters which you become attached too and go on the emotional journey with them. The special effects in this movie are also stunning with the occasional blip here and there but this does not create a hindrance to your viewing pleasure.

If you are looking for a film to watch with family and friends one night make sure you check this out, this film delivers a good package for every audience member with the addition of comedy and action which is featured in various parts of the film.


I wasn't sure what to expect with this movie since the "Loch Ness" subject matter is kind of an overused topic. The fact that people said it was "family friendly" was also a strong turn-off: kiddie characters, themes ... 'nuf said.

However, I'm glad I saw this movie! It had a good, interesting story and great characters. The special effects were pretty good too. Even though the lead character is a young kid, it was OK since all of the characters and story were realistic and serious - and not depicted from a kid's point of view.

The story is framed around a modern-day pub where an old-timer is telling a couple young hikers/travelers the story of a picture on the wall. The bulk of the story takes place during WWII at Loch Ness and centers around a little boy that discovers and takes home a large egg.

I'll pretty much confirm what other's have said. Yes - it's fit for viewing by all members of the family, but don't let that stereotype trap you into thinking it's only for kids. If you're in the mood for something light, this is a good movie and worth checking out.


I really enjoyed this film. The handling of a legendary story was good. How the military can make mistakes was well handled, I liked the squaddie's flirtation with the cook. The way in which the "rivals" were united in rescuing the boy and hoping the water horse would make its escape to the sea, was good. All actors who took the part of Angus were superb, special effects were also superb and I recognised some of the locations. I sometimes wonder if there should be a "target audience" for films. This is the type of film which (like Night in the Museum) can appeal to all ages. It's a delight to watch something with no offensive language, (which, for me, spoils such films as Notting Hill, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Bridget Jones) and no incomprehensible transatlantic colloquialisms. Make more films like this please!!


There are some movies which make you smile and cry at the same time(I didn't cry). This movie is that sort of movie.

The movie starts with an old man telling the old legend of Water Horse to a couple. The story relates to a boy, who lives with his mother and sister. The military just takes over their house during the war time, and the family is forced to live with them. This boy finds a small shining stone and brings it to his house and in the morning after the stone was brought, the stone is not there, instead there are pieces of it, and there in that room a small creature is present. This is the Water Horse. The child takes care of it without raising the suspicions of his mother, but the creature grows so huge in so small time that he is forced to drop it back in the ocean.

The relationship between the creature and boy is shown well in the movie, covering all the emotional angles with panache. The direction is consistent. Although it may not blow your mind with excitement, it is a calm movie which makes one think of the nature of man. I would recommend it.


THE WATER HORSE: LEGEND OF THE DEEP has the look and feel of an overly cutesy flick with plenty of eye-candy, and that certainly is mostly the case. But it also has a lot of story behind it, too. And what I mean by that is it has several layers of varying stories all unfolding at the same time, something that goes a bit beyond the cute and fuzzy.

It is (no surprise to many) the story of Loch Ness and its infamous monster, but with a twist towards kids and a nod to ancient myth (which isn't very kid-like). The main thrust of the story is given over to a young lad named Angus MacMorrow (relative unknown Alex Etel) and his struggling family as they oversee a nice piece of property near the loch during WW II. Wandering around the shore one day, young Angus happens upon a strange looking stone that he picks up and brings home. Little does he know that what he's found is the rarest of the rare: an egg containing a water horse. He takes the egg into his father's shop (who is away fighting the war) and leaves it one night, only to discover it hatched the following morning. He tries desperately to hide this new creature from his mother, his sister, and an inquisitive but helpful handyman named Lewis Mowbray (Ben Chapin, THE NEW WORLD).

In the meantime we learn that the war is bringing a brigade of men to Angus' family's home; there to prevent German subs from entering the loch via the sea and threatening the Scottish countryside. Angus is forced to hide his new friend (yes, he becomes buddy-buddy with the water horse) from everyone but is eventually forced to release him into the loch as he grows at an incredible rate.

The dangers to the water horse are presented when he (it?) is mistaken for a submarine and is fired upon by artillery emplacements along the banks of Loch Ness. Dangers to the horse, Angus, his family, and everything they hold dear come crashing down as everyone learns (and sees) what Angus was protecting.

Probably most cutesy are the hugs and overly-friendly chumminess that Angus and his new dinosaur buddy have toward one another. But the special effects and scenery (I saw this on Blu-Ray disc) were fairly phenomenal. The colorful heather of the hills against the grayish skin tones of the water horse were impressive (noteworthy: Weta Digital did the special effects, the same company that did THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy).

Surrounding these fantastical events are very human elements. Angus' family hides from him the fact that his father won't be coming home from the war; a heart-wrenching event for Angus considering the closeness he had with his father, and this makes his friendship with the water horse all the more important to the viewer and Angus (who will obviously soon learn the truth about his father's death). There is also a short side-story about Lewis, the handyman who shows up to help the family. Hiding his scars from the war, Lewis doesn't get along with many people, least of all the British Army leaders who are camped alongside the loch. The audience wonders if he's AWOL from the war but soon learn a much more important element about him. There is also the story of a mother trying to protect her family from the horrors of war, even as it sits down right in her own backyard.

The ancient myth that presses itself into the story is in reference to something called a "kelpie", a malevolent beast of Celtic lore that would disguise itself as a horse to lure unsuspecting victims to it. Once mounted, it would drag him or her down to their watery death. Like I said, not very kid-like.

But it was nice to see these additions to what could have been a simple huggy-huggy, kissie-kissie flick. The depth was needed and that, accompanied with some outstanding visual effects, bumped it up to an acceptable viewing.


Director Jay Russell stated, "If they asked me to make it talk I would have been off the project." And full marks to him for not disneyfying the characters of this charming film.

The film tackles difficult subjects such as loneliness and bereavement extremely well, and makes a very believable fantasy, but there are flaws, mostly fundamental goofs and an irritating opening. It may seem petty bringing these up, but the rest of the film being so good these are disappointing.

Goofs, The film is kicked off by two students looking at what is a world famous fake photo widely known to come from a decade before this film was set.

The plot of the film is that an egg is laid in a tidal pool in loch Ness, where later the Brits set up Submarine defences. Loch Ness is a non tidal fresh water loch 12 km from the sea, which has only been attached to the sea by rivers for the past several millennia.

For me the opening undermined the importance of the story of the film. Where Angus retells his tale to two complete strangers, simply because they were looking at a fake photo in a pub that 100 people a day look at and question. It would have been nice to see a deeper reason for Angus to share his legend.

You may say "So what, this is a fantasy" But the rest of this film is so good and so much effort has been made to make it 'believable' I am disappointed more effort was not made to entwine the story into the real world better.


Last year was a rarity in (American) monster cinema. Two films were released concerning the life and times of the Loch Ness Monster. The one I will be describing is Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, a children's film about a boy who discovers Nessie. The other film is a made-for-Sci-Fi-Channel horror film entitled Beyond Loch Ness. While I've yet to view the latter, the contrast between the two is startling. Water Horse holds a 6.8 rating on IMDb, while Beyond Lock Ness has only a 4.0 rating. Water Horse earns its above average rating, in most part, due to its interesting take on the child- befriends-creature sub genre. It also boasts impressive camera-work and effective CGI. This is also the first portion of a two-part "Loch Ness Saga" which will include a review of Beyond Lock Ness.

The story is told almost entirely in flashback by an omniscient narrator. It occurs in World War II-era Scotland. The narrator, an elderly man, shares a story of a child who befriends Nessie with a visiting American couple. He tells a story of a boy named Angus who had a lonely childhood which was only augmented by his father's enlistment in the Royal Navy. His father's ship was sunk but Angus hasn't surrendered hope for his well-being. He resides with his mother, Anne, his sister, and a handyman named Lewis Mowbray. One day, young Angus discovers an unusual rock in the water and he takes it home. It suddenly hatches into a mysterious reptilian creature and Angus places it in his father's former office. Angus names the creature Crusoe and watches it grow seemingly exponentially. Around this time, an encampment of British soldiers arrives to protect Loch Ness from U-boat invasion (the film presents Loch Ness as connected to the ocean). Crusoe soon becomes so large that Angus's sister and Lewis discover him. However, no one else knows about him. Lewis reveals that Crusoe is a "Water Horse," a mythical one-of-a-kind creature which protects the environment. Only one Water Horse can exist a time and the old one lays a single egg when it dies. Once Crusoe becomes adolescent, Angus hides him in a bathtub, but he escapes. Hilarity ensues as a soldier's bulldog (cutely named Churchill) chases Crusoe around the house as Angus and Lewis attempt to rescue him.

Angus reluctantly agrees to release Crusoe (who is now the size of a draft horse) into the loch. A few days later, Crusoe emerges from the loch as an adult and beckons Angus to follow him. While he is ironically afraid of the water, Angus agrees and makes several subsequent journeys with Crusoe. On one trip, British officers accidentally fire at Crusoe during a demonstration for Angus's mother. Crusoe becomes distraught and doesn't allow Angus to ride him any longer. Soon thereafter, two comedic relief fishermen "catch" Crusoe on their line and later attempt to photograph him for profit. They realize the impracticality of such an endeavor so they fake the photo which becomes the famous "Surgeon's Photo". However, since the fake photo was released, some soldiers in the Allied camp become interested in finding the "creature" as Crusoe is called. As time passes, Crusoe recovers and Angus is finally able to ride him, but a group of soldiers discovers Crusoe and attempt to slay him. They fail to detain him but the soldiers alert their superiors who interpret Crusoe as a U-boat. They fire mercilessly and raise a U-boat capture net which separates Loch Ness from the greater ocean. Crusoe jumps over the net and is finally free. At the conclusion, the elderly man reveals his identity as an older Angus to the American tourists. Just outside, a young boy discovers a strange rock in the water Water Horse: Legend of the Deep channels the same fantasy-within-war quality that Pan's Labyrinth does, albeit to a lesser extent since it follows the tropes of its genre so well. Crusoe and Angus's fantasy world in war-torn Britain is especially appropriate for a children's film. It embodies the otherworldly interests that so many youngsters have while providing a realistic backdrop for parents. The World War II backdrop is successful in maintaining adult interest as actual battle strategies, weaponry, and military equipment are included. I can't help but wonder if Allied encampments (not in combat zones) were similar to the one here. It's this quality that distinguishes Water Horse from other family films (such as the more recent Kit Kittridge) which are focused on child audiences and lose appeal for older viewers. Director Jay Russell also invests much effort into incorporating computer animation into the motion picture. Crusoe is vividly polished and does not appear to be a computerized beast in any way. He appears as real as Churchill who relentlessly chases him. The underwater scenes as also adroitly crafted. Much detail is given to the background and other aquatic life. If you can remember the imaging from the underwater portion of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, then you can visualize the bottom of Loch Ness, yet Russell's lake bottom is of a bluish color. The CGI effects are well-rendered enough to create another duality with traditional method acting around the camp. Few enhanced effects are visible when Crusoe is off screen.

While the film is both well-constructed and properly presented, its absolute adherence to its sub genre prevents it from being great. As one expects, Crusoe helps Angus overcome his father's death. Anne refuses to acknowledge Crusoe's existence until she actually sees him, and the narrator is, of course, an aged Angus. This predictability has led to many comparisons between Water Horse and Free Willy. While the two films are similar, Free Willy offers very little for an adult audience. It's the same recycled post-E.T. family film we've seen for decades now. Water Horse, at least, provides an interesting approach to this formula, and is mature enough to entertain adults.


"The Water Horse" takes place during the turbulent times of World War II in Scotland. Young Angus, who is afraid of water, finds an egg on the shore and takes it home. It hatches into a creature that he's never seen before, but as a doting father he takes in the creature as his own, calling it Crusoe after Robinson Crusoe.

Crusoe grows exponentially and at a short rate, so Angus moves Crusoe to the Lock. Meanwhile, a military platoon has taken refuge at his house, and they think that the Germans will send submarines into the Lock, so they protect it with a large net.

As Crusoe grows, it becomes harder and harder to not notice, and soon the military thinks he's a threat, and Angus tries to prevent them from killing him.

It took me awhile to see this movie, because I thought it would've been stupid, but I was pleasantly surprised about how well everything came together. My only problem is with the child actor who played Angus, because he never pronounced Crusoe's name right (it would sound like Crutoe, Cretos, Cristos, etc.), and when he would yell it was almost ear shattering, but other than that, "The Water Horse" is an excellent family film.


I sat down and watched this the other weekend, and I have to say that it was indeed very enjoyable; and has been permanantly added to our DVD collection.

The Water Horse is a very family-friendly movie that is part Sc-Fi, fantasy and adventure. The acting was extremely good, and the writing and plot is very imaginative and original...which is a nice change of pace compared to the many "copycat" movies that abound. The sets were very authentic and the outdoor settings quite spectacular.

The SFX/CGI was quite good; on a scale of 1-10 I'd give the EFX a solid 8; not the best I have seen, but very much above average.

All-in-all, The Water Hores is a movie that is definitely a suggested viewing for those looking for something a little different and fun.


I have seen numerous documentaries and films on The Loch Ness Monster. Most of the movies told about a man-eating beast lying in the depths of the Loch Ness in Scotland. Amateur films more than anything. The documentaries told of a wild goose chase, and sightings of perhaps a prehistoric creature that had somehow survived through the ages, living in tranquility. The Water Horse is by no means any of those things. It shows us a clear and fresh take on the famed Nessy. It is adapted from Dick King Smith's novel of the same name.

It comes from the Producers of The Chronicles of Narnia, another well-made fantasy feature. To put things straight, the story speaks of the legend of a water horse, a sea-creature that hatches an egg before its death, and dies at the birth of its offspring. It is asexual. There can be no more than one water horse existing on the planet at a time. It grows in size freakishly fast. It is hard to say the period of time through which the story runs.

The story of The Water Horse is told by an aged man to a couple of tourists, sitting in an Inn in Scotland. The old man, played suitably, by Brian Cox. He speaks of Scotland at the time of the 2nd World War, of a country-boy named Angus MacMorrow(Alex Etel), living in a huge manor with his mother and sister. His father, a veteran of the War, hasn't seen home in years, and is presumed dead after his ship was sunk. Young Angus, on a pleasant day of collecting sea shells by the shore, discovers an egg. An egg of a Water Horse. He cares for it, looks after it, and calls it his greatest friend.

And so begins the life of the Water Horse. It is a friendly, lovable creature at first. Adorably cute. Named Crusoe by Angus, within a very short span of time, it grows to monstrous proportions, and is set free in the Ness. Angus still cares for his friend Crusoe. He goes to the Ness to see it. And much like Harry Potter and Buckbeak the Hypogriff, Crusoe gives him a ride on his back. To the depths of the Ness and back out again.

There are pros and cons in the movie, but the pros outnumber the cons by a mile. Apart from having commendable visual effects, the acting is exciting, with awe and anguish from the young Angus. Ben Chaplin, who plays Lewis Moubray, an injured/decommissioned soldier of the war, is the best of the lot. Morissey is the flaw in the casting. A spot of overacting, but he just looks plain weird in this role after that disaster of a sequel to Basic Instinct. The others fit the bill in the casting department. Alex Etel is perfect in the role of the young Angus.

The movie, perhaps a tad 15minutess or so longer than it should have been, suffers from the impressive amount of detail it has. It falls short when it comes to editing. There were times I found myself thinking,"Now why did they jump that scene?" However, if it falls short there, it makes up in the background music. A Scottish tinge to it. Pleasant to the ears.

The Water Horse is a nice film to watch, especially with the family. It comes across as a children's movie, and the utter cuteness that the creature possesses when it is young will just make you go "Aww" at times.

The film, in its simplicity, shows us man's undying eagerness to help other living creatures around him. A cross shown to greatness in Spielberg's E.T.. This might not be an E.T., but it doesn't disappoint like most of the boy-rescues-animal flicks. Definitely worth a watch after all the mess they've made with movies based on the Loch Ness Monster. This one differs. It's good.

7/10 for the acting. 7/10 for the story. 7/10 for the visuals. They ended the movie the way lots of movies end. Doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make a sequel. But, if they make one to this, I'll watch it.


I'm usually critical of children's' films, but this one is quality through and through. It was filmed in New Zealand, (Which looks a lot like Scotland). The production was brilliant. The challenge for the crew was to create the feeling that the New Zealand fjord was a Scottish Loch, and they did a first class job with it. The cast was excellent. Alex Etel,the child lead, was very competent and shows a great deal of maturity in a difficult task. Apparently he did all his own swimming and stunts, so he must be a tough little actor. I hope we'll be seeing a lot of him in future films, The script was well paced and finely crafted. It balanced the emotional content with realism and humour. It's not easy to do. It avoided sentimentality and slap-stick comedy. (The dog was brilliant). If we want to fill seats in cinemas, we must educate our children to appreciate fine films. This is an excellent piece. It will become a children's' classic. Well done!


Yesterday I bought this film on DVD, and I must say it a terrific family film.The acting is extraordinarily great, and the special effects are amazingly beautiful. The characters are very interesting. They will have you wanting to care for them. The water horse, itself, is extremely cute. There were times where characters would add some humor. However, what really drew me in was wondering what would happen next. The relationship between Angus and the water horse made me very curious.Over all it is a fantastic film for kids and adults alike. I give it two big thumbs up.So, if you have enough time go out and pick this movie up.I strongly encourage you to do so.Trust me, it is worth your time.


Even though this film is EXTREMELY different from the charming book by Dick King Smith, it manages not to insult it (Unlike films such as "One Hundred and One Dalmatians" and "The Jungle Book").

The highlights of this beautiful partly-animated film are: well-developed and interesting characters, good amusing moments and very good acting. Also, the part of the film where the water horse is in the bath is a good point in its own right. The Scottish theme of the film, represented in the setting and the nationality of the main characters, does a good job of interpreting Scotland. The emotion that appears later in the film is yet another good addition to this motion picture, though it may very much upset others.

Of course, this film has some flaws too. There are quite a lot of sudden thrills which will not entertain some people, as they are (to put it plainly) scary. Most of the plot and the World War II theme is rather unnecessary, especially as it was not included in the book. It is just one another of those things "that make the film exciting and if we don't put it in the film will be boring". One addition of the film that is not too bothersome is that the water horse is not very cute at all when he is "fully grown".

In Scotland, in World War II, a boy goes to a beach by Loch Ness and finds what looks like a stone. He takes it home and finds it is more than just a stone covered in seaweed. It shines like a rainbow and it is quite large. The boy leaves it for a while and when he comes back to it, the "stone" is broken and a strange creature has hatched out...

Recommended to people who like the Loch Ness Monster and to people who just like good children's films, enjoy "The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep"! :-)


Jay Russell directs this fantasy a whole family can enjoy. Very good special effects and interesting story line. A young boy named Angus(Alex Etel)living in 1940s Scotland has been told his sailor father has been lost at sea. In spite of his own fear of the sea, Angus loves to spend his time on the shore of the lake. One day he discovers a mysterious egg and takes good care of it until it hatches into a 'water horse'. He names the little creature Crusoe, who seems to grow larger everyday until he becomes so large he has to be put in the lake; thus becoming the legendary Lock Ness Monster. When German U-boats start to enter the lake, Crusoe's life is put in danger... even if he has grown to monumental size. Exciting, heartwarming story and really a joy to watch. Also in the cast: Emily Watson, David Morrissey, Ben Chaplin, Brian Cox and Priyanka Xi.


This is just a good movie. (No intended SPOILERS! but they may follow) Yeah, it can be looked at as a collage of other similar films (Free Willy, King Kong, Mighty Joe Young and even a semi-recent television series - Surface)and that it is. But this is familiar and beloved ground. Not a negative. I'll welcome another installment in this vein anytime. Love 'em. We all return to the genres we love knowing we're, with rare exception, not turning over any new stones. If there is a new stone here, and there is, it is in the animation. Nope, it ain't perfect but "Great Ooogly Moogly" they did get close! It takes very little suspension of disbelief to "buy" Crusoe. Great job to all involved. Kudos, extra kudos. With the "piggy back ride" aside (and removing it would destroy this film), this family film doesn't dumb down. The sub-plots don't feel contrived, all the actors and actresses nail their characters. Even if they are all so very familiar. It just works. It's fun. It accomplishes its purpose. Without breaking ground all involved delivered a worthy film, a collector's DVD for sure. Still ... I yearn for a definitive "Loch Ness" tale. This one isn't it and never intended itself to be. For definitive to date ... you'll have to go to Werner Herzog's (he produced, starred and co-wrote - with Zak Penn who also directed)"Incident at Loch Ness". "Incident" however, didn't have to play it's hand. It didn't have to give whatever the creature of Loch Ness is or isn't, a face. That film took a different concept to run with. "Water Horse" picked its path, from a novel by Dick King-Smith (and a Robert Jacobs screenplay), and did a really good thing. Jay Russell, director, pulled it all together, found the people and the muse to do what is so necessary to take something like this from idea to cinema ... he found the magic. And shared it with us. Cool.


Once the movie ended, I started crying. I cried because this creation is one of those that truly touch you, and take you to a fantasy realm that can only be experienced in imagination. As for myself, not only did it do that and more, it also had me think about myself, and my current situation in life, and since my country damaged me so hard, I guess in a similar way, I wont experience a great deal if at all. Which makes me appreaciate movies like this one, that for a little while, I can forget the fact that my body is alive, soul wounded, and brain damaged.

This is a great movie.


Clearly an above average family film about a boy that finds magic and friendship in a strange water creature, but I was hard pressed to rate it as high as I did. Btw, why DID they cancel Surface? It started just like this movie, it was a series and it was cool, too!

Anyway, the problem is not with the CGI or even with the acting. The story in itself was good, as well. The problem sits with the characters! The main character is a spineless brat who will listen to anyone telling him to do anything. He doesn't once stand up for what he believes in. Oh, yes, he does stuff in secret, when no one confronts him, but if someone does, he runs scared. Who can identify with that?

The ending is a wee ridiculous as well. The thick military man and the unimaginative mother wake up to the truth when they see the creature and everyone lives happily ever after. Oh, except the dad, who is dead... and the creature, which has to die in order to lay an egg. And good luck hatching anywhere with that kid William having the next egg, looking all American tourist like.

Bottom line: if you like fantastic stories, this one is pretty good, but it lacks in the character development section. As a writer once said, a good story needs to have a character defined at the beginning and change drastically until the end. Nothing really does change in this film, though.


I saw The Last Mimzy and The Water Horse on two consecutive nights, and now I have forgotten many elements of the former simply through watching the latter. The Water Horse has a few inconsistencies, but overall is the better of the two films. It is not as aimless, nor does it have the presumptive air of the former, either.

The CGI is practically flawless. It works, however, in making Crusoe the Water Horse as real as possible: as we watch, we see Crusoe growing from the size of a box turtle (which it resembles early in its development) to that of a true king of the deep, the Loch Ness "monster." Having been fortunate enough to have traveled to Inverness, Scotland and visiting the Loch itself, I was delighted to see some of the places nearby, including Uruquhart Castle (the ruins on the south side of the Loch). Seeing the Loch itself gives one pause to wonder if a creature could exist, and in one of my own personal slides I have a shot with a black rock on it that I always tell people is one of the humps on the real monster. Regardless if one believes the "monster" is real or not, there is something in the air which makes one feel as though there are infinite possibilities no matter how much we think otherwise.

As it goes so often in life, we want so much to believe in something outside of ourselves, that we cherish those moments in life when fantasy is solid enough to appear real. Most of us lose that sense of wonder as we grow up and grow old, so when something comes along that restores that wonderment, if even for two hours, we should be quick to jump at it, allowing childlike acceptance take control. We can't journey back in time to those days of innocence, but we sure can recapture the feeling of them, if even for just a little while, with a vessel like The Water Horse leading the way.


I have always been mildly interested in the Loch Ness monster-it makes for a good story, as this movie proves as an old man relates to young tourists the "truth" of the creature in the lake and transports back to WWII and a family who had lost their father and husband to battle.

It's a classic scenario: lonely boy raises animal. Usually it's a dog or a deer, but hey, what's wrong with a mythological creature? While this is not quite "Babe" level, it is still reminiscent of that same innocence and charm. Crusoe, as the creature is called, is the cutest little monster to grace the screen in some time. The kids are cute and hold their own in the child acting. I enjoyed the romantic tension between the adults, and I appreciated the contrast of the innocent magic and the terrible reality of the war.

I also found it well-shot. Not Oscar-worthy, but there is something captivating about a swim through the Scottish lake This is a great little family film that has a bit of something for everyone.


A kids' film about the origin of the infamous Loch Ness Monster has the potential for all kinds of fun and wild adventures, given the monster's rich legend and reported shennaigans.

Alas, this film's unimaginative creators exploit very little of the potential excitement.

OK, so the animation of the baby sea creature is cute and believable. And, there are some fun chase scenes, and a brief bit of lighthearted relief from two shocked fishermen.

But once Nessie grows up we only get a few final and very dark glimpses before it abruptly sails off into the sunset. The filmmakers manage to squeeze in a gratuitous boy-rides- monster scene. But, it is too late, and too little for this fractured fairy tale.

The contrived presence of soldiers that maniacally shoot rounds of shells into the lake is utterly ridiculous and undercuts the film. The premise is absurd. Loch Ness does not directly link to the ocean. This is exactly the mystique about Loch Ness: it is the isolated home of an isolated creature.

That location has no military relevance to WWII. Did the soldiers get lost the way to Dunkirk? One might as well crafted a yarn about deployed soldiers at Niagara Falls.

Once again, the producers got preoccupied with the animation and beautiful setting, but let the story flounder miserably.


I saw this movie with my mom and brother the other day, and its charming-yet-not-sickeningly-sweet story, along with its acting quality and special effects, were all pleasantly surprising.

Alex Etel ("Millions") is well-cast as the main character, Angus, who lives in denial of his father's death. The prolonged absence of his beloved dad leaves Angus vulnerable and timid. He spends a lot of time indoors, deluding himself into thinking his father will eventually come home from the war. One day, Angus finds a bizarre egg at the beach. It eventually hatches into a newborn Loch Ness Monster named Crusoe, giving Angus a friend whom he can love as his father loved him.

Oscar-nominee Emily Watson gives a nervous, wonderfully subtle performance of Angus's overprotective mother, and Ben Chaplin ("The Thin Red Line") is likable and natural as the handyman who befriends Angus.

As others have noted, the CGI is used as an effective supplement to the story, and never becomes the focal point. Angus's exhilarating ride atop Crusoe through the Loch (which, in front of a stunning Scottish landscape, is gorgeous on the big screen) quells the boy's fears, which range from water to the dangers and sadness of the adult world. "The Water Horse" a fantasy that is light and family-friendly, but also carries an important life lesson.

By adventure's end, Angus learns to let go--of both Crusoe and his father. Kids will like Crusoe's cuteness and occasional comic relief, but parents will also be fulfilled, as the film is not obnoxiously zany or as drenched with annoying pop culture references as many "family movies" tend to be. Understated and genuine, "The Water Horse" is sure to warm the cockles of any movie-goer's heart.


There had been many,many stories about The Loch Ness Monster; but there is one of they think is HOW the monster came to be, along with that famous photo. In this wonderful film, based on a book by the same author of Babe; I have read the book AND seen the film. The story is about a lonely little boy named Angus who discovers a mysterious rock on the beach. But it was really an egg that hatches a sea creature known as a "Water Horse." So Angus kept the creature as a secret pet and named it Crusoe, and only his sister Kirstie and a Mr. Mowbray know about him.

I love the scene with baby Crusoe and the toy dog, that was too cute and funny. And I just love the gorgeous Scottish scenery, and the great old house...very palatial wouldn't you say. All I could about this film is that it has charm, humor and sure to warm the hearts of kids AND adults alike.


I saw "Always Will" at Dances with Films, where it won the audience award. The story was very clever and I could not believe that this was made on a shoestring budget by an independent filmmaker. It honestly looked more like a studio film. I laughed out loud, and was surprised by a little twist when Will decides to return to when he dug up the relic. The only fault I found was the Dad character. The actor played the character a little one dimensional, but since it is a comedy it still works. I loved that I could take my kids, when most festivals (unless they are "family" festivals" show the most outrageous films they can find.) I hope to see this in theaters, it's that good.


it is a knock-off of butterfly effect, and the acting is sub-par. But keep in mind this is aimed towards kids, who won't typically care about acting.

BUT, very enjoyable storyline, many of the scenes playing right out of your half-forgotten memories. Audio track feels thin at times (some scenes are not scored), but the indie-sounding songs are fantastic.

Overall, had a great underdog feel that has you rooting for the side of good, and lets you forgive the failures in the film's production.

P.S. the hilarious DVD menu alone was worth the $1 rental for me!

rent it, even if it's just for you


I rented it on a whim from the 99cents section at my local blockbuster. It's premise sounded cute and I like to take chances on independent films. I'm still not sure how this film found it's way to my local Blockbuster. The actors were just as good as middle school children in a local theater production. In others words you could see them trying to act and failing and there is no chemistry between any of them. The only redeeming quality of the film is the songs used through out the film. I could go on about the quality of the cinematography, but I will not. I think if you still want to see it after hearing how bad the acting is, then it's your time and your money to wasted. Don't say no one warned you.


Without comparing this too much to the first Butterfly Effect, the storyline was what made me watch this time waster. Always will is about as good as the 2nd Butterfly Effect.

The acting in Always will was passable at best, Baglini didn't seem to do anything with his lines. Nor did any of the other actors.

A dug up capsule of students school items is the ridiculous item that allows Will to travel to times in the past and change them. In The B E Kutcher remembers parts in the past that have been blocked because they are memories best forgotten, with more tragic consequences when the events are changed.

The storyline of Always Will is interesting, the movie needed decent acting and a better idea of how he could change his life. See Back to the Future or any number of time travel movies for something better.


It's like they put all of the biggest cliché's together and made a movie out of it. Every thing is wrong about this film: stereotypical portrayals of Russian villains, the mafia and ghetto thugs (and kick-boxing champions). Unbelievable coincidences like the fact that Dr. Wu has exactly the same bag as the burglars (so of course the bags are mixed up). And in the same scene Dr. Wu is first threatened with a gun, kicks the gun out of the mobster's hands and then starts to fight with the other mobsters, while no one thinks of pulling a gun and simply shoot the good ol' Dr.

Painstaking efforts at acting, especially in the scenes that are meant to be sentimental and/or romantic. And cliché up on cliché... The fighting scenes are of the most boring kind; if this guy is a kick-boxing champion, then kick-boxing must be very lame...


The film adaptation of Terry Southern's book is a fine mess! There's no real flow or purpose, but the stars have a ball and Ewa Aulin seems exactly right as Candy. Marlon Brando, as always, is interesting and unique and Richard Burton should have made more comedies. John Astin is excellent in a dual role, but James Coburn really steals the show as Dr. Krankeit. I'm not too sure what they could done with this material and some of the scenes are simply unplayable, but you can have fun with this.

I'm sure this was a total bomb in 1968, but I really can't remember how it did box-office wise. Best performance = James Coburn. Elsa Martinelli is also creepy and sexy and John Huston lends gruff support. Very similar to The Magic Christian, but slightly better. I know some critics at the time called it the worst film ever.


They don't make 'em like this anymore. Based on Terry Southern's classic novel, CANDY is remarkable film featuring a swinging soundtrack, actors like Richard Burton and Marlon Brando spoofing themselves, and a fast-moving picaresque story that satirizes late 60s America (military, academia, Eastern religion, etc). Criticized upon release for lack of any coherent story, is one of the best films from that era. Advocating sexual freedom and experimentation, Candy is one fun movie with a funny script by Buck Henry and wild visuals, like a glass-bottom limousine and Brando's gurumobile. A must-see!****


There has never been - nor will there ever again be - a film quite like Candy. This vulgar, scattershot, psychedelic sex satire is an utter failure, but boy what a fascinating failure!! It offers the chance to see a roster of talented stars working on such obfuscated material that their only get-out clause is to overact to epidemic levels. It also offers a chance to experience the sexual permissiveness and hallucinatory extravagance of 1960s society, in a film made just as the cinema was breaking away from the Production Code into a new and exciting era of relaxed censorship and franker morality.

The film has no plot to speak of, but is more a series of highly exaggerated vignettes. Naive high-school beauty Candy Christian (Ewa Aulin) begins her odyssey of sexual misadventures at a poetry seminar given by the reviled but popular poet McPhisto (Richard Burton). Upon taking the drunken poet back to her house to dry his trousers - soaked with booze - the family's Mexican gardener Emmanuel (Ringo Starr) mistakenly believes that Candy is coming on to him, so he makes love to her on a pool table in the basement. Candy's father (John Astin) walks in on them and is so distraught that he arranges for his daughter to take a break in New York with her uncle (Astin again). Candy ends up on an Air Force jet where she is once again seduced, this time by a mad air force officer (Walter Matthau); later she is taken advantage of by a brilliant surgeon (James Coburn) who performs a dangerous operation on her injured father. During a post-operation party, Candy's father wanders off and the girl attempts to find him on the streets of New York. Here she gets into yet more sexual situations, first being raped by a weird hunchback thief (Charles Aznavour) and later rather indecently frisked by a horny cop (Joey Forman). Candy finally seeks refuge in the back of a truck, but it turns out to be the travelling home of sex-addicted guru Grindl (Marlon Brando)... and, yes, you've guessed it, he too takes advantage of the over-sexed yet ever-innocent girl.

It is hard to be sure if there is any point to all this, though the lack of a meaningful narrative suggests that the film is trying to convey some kind of subtextual meaning. Perhaps the film is attempting to say that men are devious and conniving creatures who will try every dirty trick in the book to get into the pants of an attractive young girl? Or maybe it is saying that pretty young blondes who wear impossibly short skirts are capable of driving men of every age and occupation to experience their deepest desires? The original book was apparently a satire on pornographic clichés (I haven't read it, but I've read ABOUT it), but the film seems to be more concerned with titillation than out-and-out porn. Of the actors involved, Burton registers best as the self-indulgent poet. Matthau is quite funny too as the absurd air force officer. The biggest wastes are Coburn and Brando, the latter giving perhaps his laziest ever performance as the sex guru (though you can understand his agreeing to be in this.... a salary of $50,000 to rip off Aulin's clothes and romp around with her seems a pretty fair incentive!) Candy is a total mess of a movie, but you should still watch it if only to say you've had the dubious pleasure of experiencing its unique brand of vulgarity, chaos and extravagance.


An unbelievable cast! I have been wanting to see this movie again ever since I first saw it in college, 30 years ago. The video clip reminded me that the movie is just as good as I remember!

McPhisto, played by Richard Burton, reminds me of my old Psych Professor, Don Whaley, who taught a WMU and North Texas State. In many ways Whaley was McPhisto!

So if anyone out there reading this ever knew Whaley, email me.

I believe I read it's a limited release so it's sure to be a classic collectors item.


this is a great hippie movie whose reputation is tarnished by the fact that everyone who hasn't seen it, and most dummies who have, think it's a dirty movie about prurient sex....great misconception. It's more simple belly laughs and uninhibited joie de vivre. Granted, there are some very weak sections, e.g. the Matthau, but I laughed even as this absurd chapter came to a close...it's a product of an era when not only sex, but laughter and freedom, were celebrated and must be seen in that mindset...this is a movie that people who write certain modern movie guidebooks will never, ever, ever understand...for the simple reason that, in this era, as prurience increases, thus does narrowmindedness, so that we come to forget completely the now remote atmosphere in which such a film could be made.


Free love, wild visuals and cool tunes. Not an AFI classic, but an under-rated period film of the late 60's. Actually, I consider it a better film than a lot of what is passed off today as "great entertainment". The acting is interesting, the direction is adequate, and while Buck Henry's screenplay deviates (?) from Terry and Mason's novella rather haphazardly, the film is still one to recommend. Especially while lounging in a bean bag chair on the purple shag carpet.

The stereo soundtrack, (ABC ABCS-OC-9)featuring backgrounds by Dave Grusin, Steppenwolf and a wicked version of The Byrds' "Child of the Universe" is long out of print, and I have read that the master tapes were discarded in a 1970's clean out when ABC was sold.


Candy is one of my all-time favorite films. Although cited as one of the worst movies of all time, it had many things going for it including a big-name cast and excellent 60's psychedelic cinematography. It is impossible to see now unless you can find someone who can sell you a pirate tape. The Movie Channel used to show it but I haven't seen a listing for Candy in a decade or more. Who has the video rights? Did Marlon Brando buy them up out of embarrassment? I would like to see both the film video and the soundtrack (Dave Grusin w/Byrds & Steppenwolf) become available.


"Candy" is, above all, a movie whose point you should not try to figure out. It's the psychedelic story of Candy Christian (Ewa Aulin), a teenage girl who constantly gets raped. That's a loose description, but probably not sufficient. The mammoth cast includes John Astin as Candy's father, Richard Burton as a Dylan Thomas-like poet, Ringo Starr as a gardener, Walter Matthau as a general, James Coburn as a surgeon, Charles Aznavour as a hunchbacked thief and Marlon Brando as a guru.

Okay, so I didn't actually experience the 60s, so "Candy" doesn't have the same significance to me as it did to my parents' generation. But regardless of that, it's still a really fascinating movie. Weird, but the good kind of weird.


Christian Marquand's film-version of the Mason Hoffenberg-Terry Southern novel (adapted by the usually acerbic and talented Buck Henry) becomes a star-studded, but frantic and unfunny sex spoof ('alleged comedy' would seem more appropriate). Ewa Aulin plays a nubile innocent named Candy whose shallow charms attract eccentric men who are in and out of her life. The choice of Aulin, a Twiggy lookalike who can't act, was the filmmakers' first misstep--Henry's flimsily constructed script is the second. John Astin is amusing as Candy's father, but everyone else in the cast (Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, James Coburn and Walter Matthau among them) is simply dreadful. NO STARS from ****


This is an unbelievably awful movie that doesn't "spoof" anything except, apparently, the intelligence of the witless producers who poured money into it. Completely unintelligible plot centering around a strangely Swedish-accented New Jersey teenager who literally bounces from one sexual compromise to another, somehow managing to elude good acting throughout. Ewa Aulin, making her debut in this steaming pile, manages to convey that her only talent is taking her clothes off at the drop of a hat. And, since this is a '60's movie, there's a lot of hat-dropping going on (if you know what I mean). Embarrassing performances by such "luminaries" as Richard Burton, Walter Matthau, James Coburn, and Marlon Brando were obviously turned in for scale- that is, the scale the director must've used to weigh out the dope that permeates this piece of tripe. Painful cameos by Walter Huston and Sugar Ray Robinson, both of whom look like they wanted to be somewhere else, also burn themselves into my battered brain pan. The only honest performance was turned in by Buck Henry, who plays a raving mental patient- of course, since he also wrote the screenplay for this abomination, it was probably only typecasting. This movie is the poster child for 1960s moviemaking- the absolute nadir of self-involved, drug-addled excess. Not worth the celluloid it slimed onto.


"Candy" is more of an oddity than a movie. A truly dreadful piece of film. I was initially drawn to it because of the involvement of one of my heroes, Marlon Brando, and after seeing it the first time, I thought, "What were they thinking?". Having said that, I must admit that over the years, it has become for me what some critics call a guilty pleasure. Some of the performances are absolutely hilarious. John Astin, Richard Burton, Walter Matthau and James Coburn are all memorable. Even Mr. Brando (who in his memoirs said that he was never good at comedy) is funny as hell! I disagree with Mr. Brando. He's made me laugh in many movies. Watch "Bedtime Story" to see what I mean. I couldn't resist buying the collector's edition DVD of "Candy" but I still have to give it a 1 on the voting scale. The only reason I'm rating it so high is because IMDb doesn't give you a lower choice. It's so bad it's good. If they had just included some good nudity, the movie might have had some socially redeeming value.


Spoofing porn movies in the '60s was kinda like writing sci-fi in the 1800s - the genre in contention didn't really exist yet. Porn in 1968, pre-Throat/MissJones/Mona etc., hadn't yet developed the wah-wah guitar pizza delivery slo-mo money shot vocabulary we know and love to mock today. That said, tho, Candy has some funny moments, especially the ones taken directly from the Terry Southern novel the movie was based on.

Beatleholics seek the movie out to see Ringo Starr as the perpetually confused houseboy Emmanuel. Candy gives Starr a terrific catchphrase that, despite his irresistibly deadpan delivery, never seems to have caught on. Other than at my house, where I STILL frequently say, at any given opportunity, especially when confronted by anyone about anything I've supposedly done to vex them, "Emmanuel GOOD boy!"


Anybody who can actually sit through this piece of trash and write a positive review with a straight face needs to have his or her head examined. I have never, ever seen a worse movie in my entire life, and I have seen many bad films. This film should never have been made, and the only reason anybody should sit through it is to see which "name" actor humiliates himself the most.

That award has to go to Richard Burton, who absolutely hit rock-bottom in this film. His performance is totally embarrassing. After watching him trying to get it on with a mannequin, I thought to myself, "He must have loved Elizabeth Taylor so much to have allowed himself to be humiliated like that." This was around the time he bought the famous 69-carat Taylor-Burton diamond for his wife, and he needed the money.

The music is terrible, the acting is terrible, there is no plot, and overall it is a tasteless mess.


OK, so you probably heard a lot of bad stuff about this movie before even watching it. So have I, and after watching it, I realized that people just didn't get it. This movie is a "British parody" and the humor in it is top-notch. The script is simple, but funny. No wonder so many famous people wanted to do this movie: Brando, Richard Burton, Ringo Starr, Coburn... Why? It allows these actors to revel in the absurd while pocking fun at a bunch of taboo topics. This movie in 1968 was way ahead of its time and I would compare it to the fun I had watching the Austin Powers one (w/the 60's plot). Basically this movie is for those who enjoy absurd jokes and funny situational humor. It is very worthwhile in that respect. If you are looking for plot or deep acting look elsewhere. Although it is not a 100-jokes-a-minute kind of movie, it has many enjoyable moments. As far as comedy genre goes I give it a 7/10 with 8.5 for originality and 6.0 for execution.


First saw Candy on release at the local cinema, was blown away by most of the music on the soundtrack,went and got the L.P as soon as it was available! The opening music really set the standard, found the film OK. The L.P got lost in 1975 when I got married and moved but I have just bought the new D.V.D which is really great to see again, after all the years. I think the movie is better for seeing again some truly fantastic "one liner jokes" and way out sets! I am now searching for the L.P again to go with the D.V.D. I am not holding much hope of the music being issued on a D.V.D as I understand the master recordings have not been kept.Still at least the D.V.D is a good standby until I can find an old copy of the L.P.


Not so good. The premise is simple enough, and it came pretty close to working in the novel by Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg: take Voltaire's Candide and set it in 60s America, with an innocent girl in place of the innocent young man, and, of course, make sex the central matter. The novel's Candy is led farther and farther into lovemaking because she embodies sympathy. This sympathy involves sensing the need men have for her without ever really understanding it, and so the joke is, apparently, that she has sex with various men because she misunderstands their lust for a deeper spiritual needand this, the novelists suggest, is itself the essence of male sexuality: the wish for a compliant, innocent beauty. It's complicated satire, because at the same time it promotes and mocks arousal. Does the movie do this? No. The movie offers a series of comic bits, each featuring more or less great actors, encountering Candy: Richard Burton as the poet McPhisto, Ringo Starr as the Mexican gardener Emmanuel, James Coburn as the surgeon Dr. Krankheit, Walter Matthau as General Smight, Charles Aznavour as the hunchback, and Marlon Brando as the guru Grindl. Other parts: Anita Pallenberg, John Huston, John Astin, and Sugar Ray Robinson. The title part is played by Ewa Aulin, a young Swedish actress who's in over her head. She's pretty enough, but hardly subtlemore of a blank slate. The story, with a screenplay by Buck Henry, is mostly a picaresque sort of romp, with skits going on too long, so that the movie, despite its billing, is neither very sexy nor very funny. It's as if it were aiming for a sexier subject matter but a similar satirical approach as Dr. Strangelove, but it misses the mark nearly all the time.


Could have been made by Kubrick, and if it had been, everyone would be saying what an insightful view of humanity it is.

Like so many of Kubrick's films, Candy shows how no matter WHAT high-sounding excuses men give for their actions, they are really just animals seeking power, status, and mainly, sex. As someone else here said, Candy shows how men are devious and conniving creatures who will try every dirty trick in the book to get into the pants of an attractive young girl.

I only wish I could know what Kubrick thought of this film. I bet he liked it. I know I did.


For some reason I thought Tom Stoppard had a hand in it, but I was thinking of Terry Southern. Isn't that interesting? My memories of the film, which was played over and over again on the closed-circuit television network of the USS Forrestal during my 1974 Mediterranean cruise, were two: Richard Burton hoovering booze from the floor of his limo and Walter Matthau approaching Candy for sex in the cockpit of a military transport (this scene was repeated in Private Benjamin with Goldie Hawn). I vaguely remember Candy having sex with her comatose father, the appearance of Ringo Starr, and not much else. It's the kind of episodic story that functioned as porn in the late 60s--writers of porn didn't know how to built to a payoff, so they wrote a sex scene, moved the character to another situation, had another sex scene, and so forth (get a copy of The Devil in Miss Jones to see how it works, or Story of O, or Deep Throat, or anything of that era). Is there anything deeper to be seen in this movie? I really doubt it--it looks like a potboiler by a guy who has some bills. I don't have a clue how he got the stars to appear in it, but I'm sure Peter Sellers had a lot to do with that. And it's a gorgeous enough movie--the star is heartbreakingly beautiful and nubile; the sets are decorated with care. Terry's rep was looming pretty large with his Strangelove credit, too, so pretty much anything he ground out was bound to be printed and filmed. Whenever anyone wants to break out of short stories into novels, I advise them to follow this formula--write a series of related sex scenes. Write one a week for a year. Anyone can crank that much out. After a year, shuffle them and send them to an agent. Wait for the checks to come rolling in. What I don't get is why anyone would write about anything other than sex. It's all we care about as a species--having it, resisting it, trying not to think about it, trying to get it up, trying to keep it down, trying to get other people into bed, trying to get other people out of bed. Everything else is just window dressing. Candy is an important movie because it doesn't pretend anything else is important besides falling between the knees of a beautiful, nubile, not particularly bright young woman.


Marlon Brando explains as an Indian guru the title of this highly weird and boring movie, the girl who is named candy stands for C and Y, you get it!? The problem is that Brando not really explains what the c and the y stands for. The girl who seems to come out of space makes a journey through the United States from her high-school in New Jersey to New York and all the way to California from where she takes into space again. What i really tried to figure out when i was watching this movie is why do all these stars show up in this movie, the only explanations i can think of is that they lost a bet or the cast was blowing their heads off during filming. Fact that it was made during the sixties makes you suspect the last option!


I have been looking for a video of this movie since videotape/DVD became available. Loaded with stars and very funny. Miss Aulin was missed in other movies. Ringo is great as gardener. Coburn is a great surgeon. Who says it doesn't have a storyline. I also read the book and found the movie to be every bit as good.


I first this during it's theatrical release days. I was 14 at the time and had read the book by Terry southern and Mason Heffenberg from which this movie was adapted by Buck Henry. I saw this when it was making the Drive-In circuit and since there is nudity in this movie it must have been rated R but 14 year-old's had no problem getting into Drive-In features. I had mostly forgotten much about this and then a few years ago when DVD's started replacing videos I found a video of this in a nice hard shell case on wide screen format at less than half price so I bought it, watched half of it and forgot about it again. A few days ago I decided to watch it in it's entirety for the first time in 38 years. One of the most amazing films ever made in the fact that so many talented people could get together and turn out such waste of money, film, time and talent. Marlon Brando, Richard Burton, Charles Aznavour, James Coburn, Walter Matthau, John Huston, Ringo Starr, john Austin, Elsa Martinelli, Anita Pallenberg and Sugar Ray Robinson are among the cast with Ewa Aluin in her first film role as Candy. Haley Mills was offered but turned down the role as Candy. Actor Christian Marquand somehow got the nod to direct this mess. He had acted in European films and had been in several English language films like The Flight of the Pheonix, The Longest Day and Lord Jim but only directed this and another forgettable film in his brief directorial career before he returned to acting. Respected Cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno brought a lot of credentials to this film. He had done cinematography for several Fellini films as well as for directors Stanlry Kramer, John Huston, Arthur Hiller and Edward Dmytryk. He must have had a mental lapse of the skills he had acquired while filming this or he just sold the filmmakers his name to put on the credits but one of the two must have happened. I can't believe he would want to sully his resume with this product. Douglas Trumball, who as a Special Effects artist would do 2001 A Space Odysessy, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Silent Running, Star Trek the Motion Picture and Bladerunner produces what can be passed off as special effects here. It is interesting seeing Burton and Brando in comedic roles. Burton in the films beginning as the poet has some good lines and it's funny hearing him talk about a "fearsome poetry loving tribe" in Africa. Brando as the guru who travels the country in a specially equipped semi trailer gives a pretty good performance with what he's got to work with. Coburn is in his In Like Flint character. Starr is over the top in his Mexican gardener role with the pigeon English speak and English accent and his natural comedic talent is misused. Walter Huston make a cameo. Anita Pallenberg is good. Sugar Ray Robinson is way out of place here but actually isn't too bad at his role. John Austin is typical John Austin in his dual role as "Daady" and "Uncle." Elsa Martinelli is forgettable. Charles Aznavour is in a Fellini-type character and is unfunny. Matthau looks lost and out of place and is unfunny. Buck Henry has a pathetically unfunny cameo role. Aulin is awful. The Dave Crusin scored soundtrack is horrible. The two Steppenwolf songs could have been utilized better or left out altogether. The original Byrds-Crusin closing song is forgettable. This movie is like a film school project gone wrong. If you saw this film while you were high it still wouldn't be funny and would probably scare you instead. The overall ineptitude of this film and the monumental waste of talent does warrant some kind of perverse redeeming value to it however.


I saw this movie in December of 1968 when it was first released in the US. I was in High School, had just turned 16. This movie was rated "X" (noone admitted under the age of 16). I remember it being somewhat disjointed. When I think about it, I can't help comparing it (loosly) to the "Austin Powers" type of film, except much racier! By todays standards quite tame. It seems so campy now, but what a cast!! I'm glad it's on DVD now; I'll watch it again. I started being a movie buff when I was very young. My uncle owned the "63rd Street Drive-In Theatre" in Kansas City, Mo. from the late 50's to 1998. So I'm quite well-versed in cinema history.


This is one of those movies that's not for everyone. But for those of you that enjoy a truly off-beat film this is it. The film stars some very big stars, in roles they probably would like to rethink taking. But having said that, it was worth the price of the film to see Marlon Brando as psychedelic guru whose temple is in the back of an 18 wheeler. And thats just one of the odd characters in this film. I really enjoyed this the first time I saw it in the theater in 1969, and again when I found the DVD in 2001. But it's definitely a niche' film. There's a lot of people who would hate this kind of film


I haven't seen this since its release, and I've looked for years to see if it made it to tape. At last, it has, and I'm buying a copy to see if it's still the barrel of black humor laughs I found it to be in '68 Brando was one of my favorites. Matthau a close second: "Snap to, fly boys!"


An outrageously funny film that captured the spirit of the times with a musical score to match. An all star cast with a sense of humor about their own stardom. I'm guessing that this film is so hard to find anywhere because some of the stars that appeared in it lost their sense of humor as they got older. Nothing is sacred, except Marlon's bird.


This film is funny and very good in general for light cinema. Some shots are clever as well as for Ewa Aulin's acting... as an innocent blonde sexy girl through the whole film...some acting scenes are hilarious. Too bad she never had the chance to become known for her work. In all i rate this movie a 7...not more because the ending is a little odd for me...go watch it for good entertainment.


I've waited 30 years to see this again and almost gave up on finding it!. I have never read Voltaire's "Candide", or Terry Southern's novel "Candy" but I do find this a marvellous parody of the late 60's culture. It is also a great illustration of the fact that, no matter how cerebral men get, show us a pretty girl and we become jibbering idiots! This is not a film that changed cinematic history but will always be one of my favourites from my college years.


I was riveted by the story and the acting. Excellent procuction values. Sean Hayes was fantastic, delivering a true breakthrough performance. Jeremy Northam and Paula Cale exhibited a sense of the period and volatility of the situation without venturing into cliche. Bravo!! Beautifully directed and produced.


This movie was so great. Sean Hayes played Jerry Lewis almost flawlessly. The story was accurate and the movie was well made. Though they only had 2 hours to get the whole story, it was almost all in there. The most important parts were covered. This movie was AWESOME. I hope they put it on DVD.


T.V. Movies are rarely as noteworthy as those we see on the silver screen, this collaboration is an exception. Sean Hayes depicted Jerry Lewis to a tee, and if he doesn't garner an Emmy nomination for this, then I decree the Emmys are fixed. Jeremy Northam also gave a stellar performance as the stoic Dean Martin. If you enjoy a good biographical epic, then this picture is definitely one to see.