Somewhere in the film entitled Birth, there is a charming feminine desire to accept the mystic power which promises eternal love. A woman has lost her husband and somehow after a ten year period, a small boy appears proclaiming he is the reincarnated soul of her deceased husband. The premise is palatable and the acting is brought to the point of acceptability, with the talents of Nicole Kidman and Lauren Becall. However, during the film one becomes aware that something beyond credulity is being glossed over. The age of the two individuals. The older woman eventually accepts her late husband's spirit in the form of the young boy and therein lies the problem. Even if it's accepted that an older woman could in fact love a little boy, the fact of the matter is, if the roles were reversed, and it was an adult man and a ten year old girl in the bathtub, women's groups from one side of the country to the other would be screeching at the top of their lungs that this film is nothing short of child molestation! So before you praise the overall romance of the film, consider what implications are being accepted. **


This is a movie that does not seem to go anywhere and the ending doesn't make any sense but there are other parts of the movie that don't make sense either. The movie begins with a man running and then collapsing. We don't know who the man is, why he collapsed, or what happened to him because the movie then cuts away to the birth of a child. In a roundabout and murky way, viewers learn that he died and the following birth since perhaps is to symbolize his reincarnation.

The infant then grows up and comes into the life of the widow of the man played by Nicole Kidman as a ten year old boy who claims that he is her former husband. He demonstrates this to her by an intimate knowledge of their married life together and the question is if he is not the reincarnation of him, then how did he gain such knowledge. Early in the movie there is a scene in which the boy sees another woman bury a box, and then go to a party given by Kidman and the boy follows the woman to the party. The clue raises the suspicion that the boy located the box and its contents revealed information relating to the previous marriage but on the other hand, if that was what happened it doesn't make sense, because if the boy was busy digging up the box, the woman would have been long gone by the time he finished, and he couldn't have followed her.

Further, even if there was information in the box about the prior marriage, it would never have reached the detail that the boy later disclosed to the widow, and since the boy confronted the widow very shortly after the box was buried, he would not have had time to have read and memorized all the information contained therein.

All the viewers know about the boy is what they see after he begins following the woman so viewers know nothing of his character or his prior life. He is virtually faceless.

Viewers may have difficulty recognizing Kidman at first because she has a hair style completely different than that which makes her such a vivacious actress. But Ann Hecht also wears a red wig instead of her usual blond hair and I didn't know who she was until I read the credits at the end of the movie.


-an engaged woman gets a visit from a boy claiming to the reincarnation of her dead husband from years ago. At first she is very skeptical like every normal human being would be about a silly claim like that but after the boy begins to mention some things that only the real husband of the woman would know she begins to believe him and fall in love with him which causes problems for everyone around her

-the first time I saw this I really hated it. I think if I had written a review for it back then I would have given the movie a 1 mostly because of the horrific ending that makes no sense what so ever. but I think after you watch the movie again expecting the crappy ending you really begin to see the movie as what it is which is a look at how one little event can destroy someone's life if they're not careful. When we first meet Kidman's character she is a seemingly happy women that has put the past behind her and is enjoying her life for the most part, but once the boy comes into her life we see how it begins to affect her and how a rational woman can go insane. You'd think someone like her would never fall what's being fed to her but she actually believes it which causes problems for her whether how it dissolves the relationship with her fiancée or how it affects her family. It's really nice to watch as her world comes tumbling down but yet she doesn't realize it because she's so in love and believes that the boy is her dead husband. If the movie had kept this going and had an amazing ending then I think the movie would become something wonderful but some reason the writer just seems to have run out of ideas and just gave us an ending that should make people want to throw things at the screen.

-I'm not a fan of Opera since it's bores me to tears but those who do will love the soundtrack on this movie which uses various opera cues that I've never heard and don't really care about. Kidman would be great in the movie if she was capable of expressing more than just one emotion in the movie. throughout the movie she looks tired and bored and we rarely get to see her smile which is appropriate for her character because her world does get turned upside down. Just wish she'd smile more. The ten year old boy that's the source of everyone's misery is played by Cameron Bright who can be seen in the new X-Men movie as "the cure" of the mutant gene. He like Kidman is somber throughout the movie and I don't think we ever get to see him smile even once in the whole movie. he is very creepy looking and scared me quite a bit so I guess he did a great job.

-with a better ending it may have been a masterpiece but as it stands it's a really good movie that shows how fragile we really are and how one lie can change the course of your life


I have to admit, at the end of the movie I was at first disappointed. You are left with so many unanswered questions. Why didn't Sean remember who the old lady was and why didn't he remember his "lover" when he met her. If the love letters were written by Nicole Kidman's character, how do we even know that the contents of those pages gave him the insight he had into her personal life. Anne Hesh's character wasn't present when the recordings of the kid and what he said were played. So how could she have known for herself the validity of the kid's testimony. Why would a ten year old boy put himself in such an awkward position where he was obviously aware of the damage it could cause the people involved. I feel this was the director's intention for the movie. Kidman was right on the money when her character explained to her fiancé that it wasn't her fault when referring to how everything happened. It ended the way it should have because who runs away with a ten year old boy and tells him you'll wait until he's 21 to get married. This showed reality of life and how we can't live in the fantasy. In my opinion Nicole Kidman did a wonderful job in portraying a woman who had lost her true love. The movie for me shows the anguish and torture love can cause and how it never disappears even when you "belong" to someone else. The final touch was the song played during the credits. The tone of the music set an uneasy mood, that was chilling yet sweet and this was the feeling I was left with. Bittersweet. I loved it.


I saw this movie at a film festival before it was released to the general public and poor Nicole Kidman got boo-ed by a lot of the people who had come to see the movie.

I eventually went to see it again when it was finally released to the general public.

I can't believe how uptight Americans can be about anything and everything involving sex and sexual situations. What are their hang-ups about such things ?

People were too worried about the movie appearing to condone child pornography instead of watching the movie for what it was actually about: a movie about death, mourning, and re-incarnation.

Since I practice Budism, I was glad to see the issue of re-incarnation brought up in such a mainstream movie. The story is very gripping and holds you to the edge of the seat the entire time.

I also liked the fact that there is very little dialogue in the movie. Sometimes, too many words and unnecessary conversations can get in the way of a great story.


If you're looking for clear plot pay-offs, this is a movie for which you should probably wait on the DVD.

Nicole Kidman's flawless form adorns the prow of this doomed, but baroque ship of fools and nearly redeems it entirely by force of sheer elegance.

As a soon-to-be-wed New York nabob of indistinguishable profession, she is confronted by a ten-year-old boy claiming to be the man who widowed her ten years earlier, reincarnated. But a former inlaw may have something to say about the husband's reappearance, and her fiancé's none too pleased either.

This film may prove compelling to those in the audience who've suffered the untimely loss of a spouse, but we are given very little reason to care about either Kidman's character or her would-be grade-school suitor. Indeed, her fiancé seems the most genuinely human character in the picture as he finally snaps under the weight of the sheer absurdity of the situation and takes the boy across his knee. The ethereal Kidman and the even more otherworldly boy -- played by Cameron Bright -- each seem somewhat malevolent and selfish. In a couple borderline irresponsible scenes they bathe together and exchange thoughts on the sexual dynamics their union might entail. Artsy!

You might say the film is about duking it out with your lover's past or coping with lost love and infidelity, but, in the end, if you're like me, you are not going to care about these people no matter how hard you try. And in a character-driven film like this, that's pretty much the whole ballgame.

But the cinematography and pacing are brilliant. Also, as mentioned, you get to look at Nicole Kidman in full Elvis for a hundred minutes and there's far worse ways to spend an evening.

As I said, a decent rental for a dull evening some night, but don't lay out the nine dollars.

This movie review by Erik Gloor


This movie is actually not about reincarnation. The theme of reincarnation consists the outer layer of the story. It does not make any difference if you believe in reincarnation or not to understand and appreciate what happened and why it happened in the movie. Love as the core fundamental need which binds all humans together is the main theme of story. A ten-year old boy finds some love letters from a woman madly in love with her dead husband. He 'wishes' to be the object of that love. This desire is so strong that the viewer wonders what has been happening in this boy's life that has created such a huge gap in his emotional make-up. His family is not wealthy. The father is a tutor and the mother is probably a homemaker. Maybe he is being neglected often. His family life is not explored sufficiently and it really does not matter. The viewer can construct various scenarios for his need to be loved the way that dead husband was loved by his wife.

Nicole Kidman, as a woman still in love with her dead husband, is torn between settling down with a man (her fiancée) who is 'able' to satisfy 'her needs' and her longing for a love which could fill her up to the brim with ecstasy and rapture. She is even willing to wait another eleven years for the young boy to become twenty one, so that they can marry. Although at the end of the movie, it becomes apparent that her love for her dead husband was not enough to keep him happy and content, it is a love capable of transforming a little boy to the degree of washing him off of selfishness and dishonesty (if there was any).

Going back to reincarnation theme, after looking at the movie from a psychological perspective, a firm believer in reincarnation could attest that the young boy was the dead husband understanding the value and depth of his wife's love only after his death. This view is plausible not because of the concept of reincarnation, rather for his inability to remember that he was dishonest to his wife and betrayed her.

The way this movie has been advertised and a couple of scenes which could make some viewers uncomfortable does not do justice to the profound message that the makers of the movie wished to bring across. This is not a movie for an average person. Do not expect to be swept off your feet with reincarnation philosophy or a love story. It is a painful, realistic, and utterly agonizing look at human beings struggling for a feeling, a force, or a fate which could define their lives.


Well the movie's idea or theme was unique but the movie itself was not found satisfying in my opinion. I like some of its ideas about how Nicole Kidman's character was shown through her actions, as well as some of the times when (she was watching a movie with her fiancé)her mood changes slowly as she is trying to get over a shock by pretending to be watching the movie.

But for every occasion that comes up in the movie, it is extremely long. Makes you think they wasted a lot of the movie time on mere extension of the situation. The way they wasted so much time was ridiculous (this includes the very beginning part of the movie when a man wearing black is running). They were trying out something new, something different, but to me i found that whatever they were trying to do didn't work out quite well. I really didn't like it and i found that i wasted my time watching this movie that centers around only one idea...


Silly movie, but has good acting by young Sean.

It is sad though that interesting stories are ruined by high paid actors. Nicole is an actress that doesn't seem to know where her talent lies. Is it comedy, or drama, or horror? I have not seen anything yet by her to indicate she is worthy of her status monetarily or with the media.

She was fooled by idiot Cruise the first time, now she is fooled by a 10 year old.

I give the movie 4 of 10 only because the music score is very haunting and helps to keep the viewer focused. The story could have been played better, and the ending is ridiculous.

Overall, the movie has no winning quality to it and you will be disappointed if you watch it. Cannot recommend.


This movie reminds me of a painting. The opening shot of the film is one of the best i've ever seen, and the emotion this film creates throughout if you open yourself, is something few movies can do. The story wasn't anything great, but the storytelling, WOW! The director manages to get the right amount of energy and tone from his actors without it becoming boring or melodramatic. Instead I believed what I was watching. The closest surreal experience I can compare this to is with something like the "Exorcist" or "Being There" or some aspects of "Wonder Boys." In other words the director/film makes you feel cold and confused at times, but never really loses you or me.


The only reason I didn't rank it higher was because of the lack of emotion from the little boy. If he really was sean and really did love her, he would stop trying to impose himself into her life when he knew it could never work. I understand that it is PROBABLE that when he asked Clara in the bathroom not to tell Anna he was referring to the letters he dug up. I still believe that he was sean though....the letters he read couldn't have told him where her husband died. That would have been impossible. Did Anna write her dead husband a letter mentioning where he died and then did that letter fall into the hands of Clara??? I don't think so. The only explanation for him knowing where to meet anna was that he died there and remembered the place. Having said that...I hate the selfish bastard. 1-He cheated on his loving wife with psycho (anne heche) 2-He wouldn't leave anna alone even though he knew all he could do was hurt her 3-He was creepy


It grows on you, but this one really is hard to review.

On the one hand, I am *not* a Nicole Kidman fan. I have only seen a few of her films (3 or 4), but none have impressed. I'm pleased to say that this time around I did in fact feel that she had depth of character. At times you pity her character Anna, at other times you are in anguish, and sometimes you just want to rip her out of the screen, give her a good shake and ask her if she realises she's bordering on jailable offenses.

Apart from the surprise attraction to Kidman's acting (finally), there is certainly much to merit this film. Others have already noted fantastic cinematography and the delectable soundtrack. To be clear, some visual sequences may well seem programmed, plain or predictable, but I think not - there is a careful blend between frame composition, colour (very much so, colour) and animation. There is one handicam scene however, which stood out for being shaky for no necessary reason (when Anna walks through the park to meet Sean).

The music (or lack thereof) has been criticised for being sparse, but again, the empty space is used to dramatic effect. When there is music, it stands out and it is used well - building, pulsing and at times co-ercing anxiety in the listener.

Casting technical merits to the side, we get to a discussion of the characters themselves. I have already mentioned the depth of Kidman's character, Anna. The boy, Sean, on first reflection appears very droll but on further consideration is actually quite complex - and this is probably due more to the plot than the character. Other characters in the film are also believable, even if not always to one's liking (hey, did someone say "true to life"?) In considering the characters, this is where the camera-work, colour palette, costume and makeup all come together to really enhance each player - and there are some fascinating visual and social studies of Anna, Clara and Joe in particular.

Without providing spoilers, the plot seems straightforward but certainly can have you reconsidering what you think has happened or might happen next. It is because of the plot that I chose the summary line "it grows on you" and I think that is a good thing. Interestingly though, it is probably the plot that has been criticised the most by those not favouring the film. Ultimately, I feel the script *is* the film's strongest feature, but you need to want to engage with a slowly evolving, thought provoking, character based storyline. Many times this genre has failed miserably, but in Birth it succeeds with a perfect mix of character, pace and script which is backed by excellent film making, acting and score.

The film has been labeled controversial for a specific scene. The scene itself is neither visually explicit nor sexual, but it does imply an impropriety that is both offensive to the majority, and probably illegal "in the real world" (as opposed to the film set). The theme in question appears again in dialogue later in the film.

In conclusion, across the board, all parts of this film work together to produce quite a challenging and fascinating piece well worth watching, but bear in mind the warning of offense mentioned earlier.


This film was extremely well acted and cast, but the story is what I really enjoyed. Many people are commenting on the "reincarnation" aspect of the film - they've totally missed the point. The film isn't about reincarnation, it's about how credulousness and emotional fragility leads one woman into a dark, disturbing relationship with a lonely prankster, and ultimately about how one woman gets her revenge for a long-ago wrong.

The film is beautifully made, with a soundtrack that sets the mood instead of "cu-ing" you on how you are supposed to react to a scene (like so many soundtracks try to do these days).

If you like movies that explore the darker side of humanity, then you will really enjoy "Birth."


This movie is a visually beautiful one to watch. Further more it's a great movie to watch for its characters, that are all build up well and played good by the actors. Director Jonathan Glazer provides some visually powerful scenes with the help of the actors that perhaps feel a bit too theatrical at times but nevertheless it makes "Birth" an original and good enough movie to watch.

Reason why "Birth" is not a perfect movie is due to the story. Everyone already knows about the controversial story about this movie but the problem with the story is not its controversially, it's its believability. The story is told in a realistic way and all of the actors are also realistic in their roles but still the story comes across as unbelievable and not credible. Perhaps this not only due to the story but also because how the story is told. It is all beautiful to look at but some of the moments are rather far fetched and not explained well enough or deepened out good enough, which makes the movie not always a believable one to watch.

Like I said before there is nothing wrong with the looks of this movie. There are some artistic and original sequences that I rather liked, although that also is what makes "Birth" a movie that not just for everyone. You have to be a regular movie watcher that also is able to appreciate slowly told dramas with lots of flair. The musical score by Alexandre Desplat might be a bit out of place at times but its good to listen to nevertheless.

Nicole Kidman is great in the leading role but so is the young Cameron Bright. The movie has a further more very solid supporting cast. Not every character might serve exactly a clear purpose for the story, they still prevent "Birth" from being an one sided flat movie with slow moments in it.

See it for its beauty and don't expect too much from the 'controversial' story. Sure it makes the movie an original one but not always a believable one.

7/10


Well, to me, it was Nicole Kidman which made me rent this DVD.

I watched if after 'Bridget Jones - The Edge of Reason' because I reckoned I needed something serious after that fairy-tale, but I was not prepared to see what it was coming.

I honestly hated the story, I find it appalling that somebody would think of such a f**ked up story. And even though there are some CGIs used for some of the scenes where the two main characters meet, I still think this is a sick tale to put on screen.

However, there is something interesting about this film, despite its many flaws (as if they did not have enough money to properly edit it). Nicole Kidman is wonderful once again, playing the part which suits her like a glove: a very beautiful woman, entirely consumed by all sorts of dramas ('The Others', 'Dogville' are just two other examples). And yes, that shot, at the Opera... is just amazing! Brilliant! Apart from Nicole Kidman, there is also the very special soundtrack, which combined with the directing, create an atmosphere of intense pressure, eroticism, beauty and darkness altogether.

Also, the image at the end of film, on the beach... will haunt me forever.

Relax your nerves, cause they will be stretched ... to the maximum (at least that's what happened to mine!)


I couldn't believe Nicole Kidman would appear in something so contrived, so I reconsidered the role of the coincidences. If I've stumbled on to what was intended, it's worthy of Charlie Kaufman or Philip K. Dick (is that good or bad?).

In religions, reincarnation is a punishment; another chance to atone and reach "nirvana." There is suffering for prior sins, but no awareness of previous "lives." "Birth," however, imagines that the coincidences (maybe written as "divine" or "psychic" interventions) enable the boy to slowly become aware of his previous incarnation, and then its sins. This time, his actions and sacrifice ultimately protect his ex-wife. In the end, she has forgiven the boy, although for a "trick" he didn't play. To a boy, the act of forgiveness perhaps would be enough, especially with the assistance of his psychiatrist, for him to resume a "normal" life. Hopefully any additional suffering caused his unwitting ex-wife wouldn't warrant "Rebirth: Sean 3."

Should movies be so confusing and complicated? Even Ebert couldn't come up with a single interpretation supported by all the "facts" presented. Is understanding a movie, like revenge, a dish best served cold?


What began as a three minute student film has become a cult classic that seems to snowball with the years. Mike Jittlov, film-maker/animator/writer/director/editor/co-producer/calligrapher/cult figure and iconoclast, created this cultural cul-de-sac as almost a love story to film-making. The sequence where he applies for various Union memberships to complete his film is probably too close to the truth, and the hyper-kinetically edited sequence near the end of the film is a wonder to behold.

Bootleg copies of the (now long out-of-print) SGE release have been passed around fandom like pieces of the true cross, and the popularity of the film, as well as it's creator, only grows stronger.

This film should be required viewing for all film students, as well as those who want to know how to make a film on a low budget (and how there are many sharks in the waters of Hollywood, which this film so clearly points out).

Hunt down this film (copies can be had in one form or another, check the related websites), watch it, and cherish it. You may end up wearing out the pause and slow-scan buttons on your VCR trying to figure out how he did these special effects without a computer!


I saw this first years ago, when I was kid, around the time it came out. My dad loved it, and we had it on tape. It was then lost in the streams of time and I totally forgot about it. About a year ago, my sister and her husband, while i was over visiting, pulled a video out of their shelf and asked if I'd ever seen this. It was "The Wizard of Speed and Time", and I said that it looked familiar. From about 10 seconds in, I remembered this movie competely, and was filled with merriment in the way people get when you see something again that you loved as a kid, and is still as good.

Jittlov wrote, directed, produced, audited, gripped, funded, cranked, cameraed, composed, googled, flamboozed, and starred in this almost one-man show. He's extremely talented, in all respects. The movie is extremely cleverly written, well acted, well directed, and amusing to the point of extremes. Very clever shots are taken to many different facets of hollywood, as Mike tries to complete a movie he's making. The ending is witty, the romance is credible, and this movie is just plain fun. It even has good music! Definately high on my list of all time goodies. I did get a bit sick of it after watching it about 30 times or so, but very few movies keep my attention that long. A warning though, you really have to be a certain kind of person to enjoy this movie. Most people I tried to get to watch it didn't enjoy it. Let's face it, Mike is a nerd, getting all the chicks, and stands up for nerds everywhere. You kinda have to be a nerd to enjoy this movie. And I am a nerd. 9/10


Bizarre and obscure little film that charms you into watching it with gusto once a few minutes of it pass your eyes. It's an homage to struggling independent film makers everywhere, and filled with lots of subtle bits of humor and satire and quick-to-pass messages during the F/X. This film looks like it was made for about 40 bucks but don't let that keep you from watching it. What's more, evidently Mike Jittlov cast all his friends (a LOT of them) and his mom in the film as well, and it appears that each and every one of them are having the time of their lives doing this movie.

One of my favorite scenes is when Mike enters the office that Dora Belair (portrayed by Angelique Pettyjohn, sadly her last film appearance) works from, and there's a poster on the wall behind them of her Star Trek character "Shana" dressed in that aluminum foil bikini from the episode "The Gamesters Of Treskelian". It's a nice sci-fi touch... And nobody seems to notice.

Mike has a hard time trying to get his work recognized by anyone of substance (very much like real life) and it seems there's a crooked producer at every turn waiting to rip him off, and it isn't helped by his stigma about shaking hands... which is never really explained other than that he simply "...doesn't shake hands".

Throughout the film we see Mike working on film F/X in what appears to be his own garage and his own tools and props, and we get to see him actually producing the F/X that end up running in the short that he presents as his product, "The Wizard Of Speed And Time".

This is an astonishing little film that deserves much more recognition than it ever got, and it's a gem in the rough for being so matter-of-fact and innovative. It's also a must-have for any cult film or obscure cinema collector to include in their video collection. Of my all-time top 20 films, this would have to slip into the mix somewhere by its sheer tenacity and strength of will and innovation, if not for anything else. I really would have liked to have seen Mike Jittlov do something else similar to "Wizard..." but alas nothing ever came to be. I can watch this film over and over again, and with each viewing its atmosphere and flavor makes me feel like I'm 20 years back in time.

It's not for all tastes. Some people think it's absolutely wonderful, some people think it's amateurish nonsense. Some people simply won't get it at all. I got it. I liked it a lot, and the somewhat silly segments with the terribly cliche'd producer are forgivable if not perfectly allowable for the sake of comic relief, especially seeing as how that's the real producer of this film hamming it up on camera. If you *do* appreciate films like this, you'll feel refreshed after watching it and you'll feel like you'd like to meet Mike and maybe buy him a coke... just don't try to shake his hand.

Then go out and become an independent film maker yourself.

Bravo Mike, ya done good!


I first saw this movie back in 1989 with some friends of mine, we were in the habit of going to the video store and TRYING to find a movie none of us had seen. One trip brought us this rare gem. We watched it and were thoroughly amused by this story of Mike Jittlov vs. Hollywood. The stop-motion effects were simply amazing, executed with skill that would make ILM green with envy. The story was funny in a poking-fun-at-Hollywood-and-ourselves kind of way. NOTE: Our rental copy included the movies own hilarious trailer, this trailer does not seem to be included in copies available today (5 YEARS in the making! 5 DAYS in the theaters! ect). Watch it, love it, share it with your friends.


This film is magic at its best pure and simple. As such it's not for everyone. People who don't like silliness or weirdness will probably find it dull or worse. But anyone who believes in magic, who wants to see wonders unfold before their eyes and who can be silly for the duration of the film will find it an absolute treat.

The Wizard, Mike Jittlov, whisks us into his fantasy world almost immediately and it's a roller-coaster of cheesy but fun jokes and truly astounding and heart-felt FX that speak to the child in each of us.

The sheer kinetic ENERGY of this thing makes you feel like you could fly (or run on air anyway)! Rumors are that Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell actually asked Mike Jittlov to visit them to preview a little film they'd thrown together called "Evil Dead" because they wanted someone who they respected to give the thumbs up to their movie before it debuted! Dreamers rejoice in the chaotic joy that is "The Wizard of Speed and Time!"


Mike Jitlov sold his soul to devil for this film, the agent for the devil in this case was in this case Richard Kaye(the films producer) although this is yet to be confirmed. He now cares for his mum in the family home(featured in the film) on welfare, The Hollywood machine chewed this guy up and spat him out(maybe he should of stuck to math language?!). Well another talented human gets chucked on the pile, while Kevin Costner roams free to make movies as he pleases. Its a very very sad world....The film its self is a little self congratulatory, but Jitlov is such an extraordinary talent that this indulgence can be forgiven. The love scenes are handle with a tender naivety which was real, The Kiss shared between Mike and Paige Moore in the film was Mike's first ever kiss. The special effects were created by hand by Jitlov himself, and they are unique, no CGI here. They are not as flashy as say Lord of Rings ROTK but in a different way they are as impressive($300mil vs less than $500,000). Its got its weak points but you probably won't see to many films with this much love and devotion poured into them. If you haven't seen this wonderful piece of cinematic whimsy then go see it, its kinda cheesy 80's but if thats a bad thing for you, its definitely worth seeing thru that to see such a unique talent that you may never see again anywhere else on film, and to be cheered up despite your self. We love ya Mike, never stop believing.:) love, happiness and fine wishes KbJ


Jittlov has more talent in his little finger than about 3/4ths of the film directing "talent" of Hollywood combined. The three little film bits he did for Disney during the 1980s was the BEST thing that came out of the Disney studio for that entire decade (AND the decade before), but Disney otherwise rejected his pitches for a feature film entirely.

Jittlov's WIZARD OF SPEED AND TIME feature film is a wonderful romp of a film, in spite of the fact that he was not allowed to finish the film's special effects and sound effects in many places. (As legend has it, the film's co-producer, Richard Kaye, allegedly made off with the film's completion money before the film was done.) Jittlov considers the film to be only about 75 % completed, which accounts for the less than stellar rating from some viewers who don't know of this behind-the-scenes back-story, and who just don't "get" what Jittlov was trying to do with this film.

It boggles the mind to think of how even MORE nifty the film would be is some financial angel would come along and give him the $ to complete it, creating a "director's cut" for release on DVD, with ALL his equally great short films available on the DVD, as well as other extras that Jittlov could add to the DVD also.

Alas, no one has been forthcoming, and Jittlov has suffered financially and emotionally for almost two decades. When will Hollywood learn to NOT destroy the creativity of such filmic geniuses as Jittlov, Orson Welles, Buster Keaton, etc., etc., etc., etc. Join with me: Pound on the sand on the beach and shout, "Damn them all to hell !" for not RUSHING to Jittlov's aid.

Jittlov can do with 5 million dollars what other filmmakers do with 50 million, and with all the poorly conceived, ineptly produced drek coming out on DVD and on TV, the world NEEDS filmmaker's with the talent, vision(s), and attitude of Jittlov more desperately now than it ever did.

And on top of all that, he treats his fans like gold. Returning phone calls (I believe he's still in the L.A. phone book.) and answering e-mails. Even his web sites are more magnificent than most also. (Google can find them for you.) Gawd ! Is there NO justice???? Are ALL the studios in Hollywood so consistently and perpetually STUPID that they don't recognize his OBVIOUS talent? Has the world gone MAD ??? SOMEBODY with money, CALL HIM !!!!!!


'The Wizard of Speed and Time' is a wonderful film with a happy ending. The special effects, for the time and technique, are absolutely stunning. If you liked the animation in Nick Park's Wallace and Gromit series, you'll love this film made in 1989. The film shows that it is a low-budget labor of love, and although the fashions and beauty standards are dated, I can't wait for it to come out on DVD (hopefully with lots of behind-the-scenes information and trivia). The character development and plot is suitable for younger audiences, who may not get the in-jokes and broader theme, but will enjoy the visual animation and goofiness on its own merit. I find that this film is one I consistently watch every few years. It is incredibly hard to find a good copy, but well worth the effort.


WOSAT, as it is known to its loyal fans, is one of the greatest movies ever made. It's charming, it's funny, the special effects will stand up against the test of time, and it's a true hero's journey - the Green Wizard overcomes the challenges and wins the heart of the pretty girl, as well as defeating the bad guy.

It's a shame that it didn't turn out that way in real life for Mike Jittlov. He is a genuinely talented person who deserved better than he got from his business partner, who played the evil producer in the movie and who also screwed Mike over royally on the movie.

Buy this movie. Visit alt.fan.mike-jittlov and tell Mike how much you loved it. Send him money. We need more Wizard Work in this world!


This film is an effective, touching work that is mostly autobiographical, yet exaggerated to provide laughs and insight on the difficulties of show business. Yes, it's one of those "little guy vs. big business tyrant" films, but it's also very different, because in this case, it's about a special-effects/animation geek, a character which, if it has ever been portrayed in film, would still be nothing close to this because the man playing the part is a real special-effects designer, animator and editor. Usually, this genre of film is reserved for struggling actors or writers. This is about the man behind the scenes, a person who, unlike a director or actor, even more so than a writer, is rarely, if ever, on the set of an actual film. In watching this film, you are constantly reminded that the man responsible for it (Mike Jittlov) is someone who truly enjoys what he does and that he's not in it for the money. It's based on and around actual shorts he made, called "demo reels" that a special-effects designer/animator/editor/writer such as he would take to various film studios to showcase his talents, including the classic "The Wizard of Speed and Time," how difficult it is to make them, and how much harder still it is to get someone to see it. Jittlov did basically everything in the film: he starred in it, did his own stunts, wrote it, directed it, edited it, did all the special effects and animation, wrote the title song, financed it and a host of other jobs. This is someone who knows what he's doing and knows how to do it well. I can't say enough wonderful things about this film, so I'll stop now. Though it may be a bit difficult to find this film, if you do, you should take the opportunity. You'll see the genius of a man who deeply loves his craft and does not take it lightly.


Many films have polarizing effects on the film audience. This is one of them. On the surface the plot is very simple: good man vs. evil system. As the plot takes shape the audience realizes that they are watching a movie that is jam-packed with terrific special effects and a wonderful combination of subtle and audacious humor (with its own off-the-wall style). Some people will tire easily of these, while others will wonder where this gem has been hiding.

This film contains much social commentary on Hollywood's film industry presented in a humorous manner. Despite the non-stop humor the audience can grasp the emotions flowing through Mike as he angrily contends with a horribly, self-loving producer; enthusiastically and sacrificingly seeks to create a film that will amaze and delight people; and sensitively tries to win the love of a young aspiring actress.

Those who enjoy the eye-candy will constantly wonder how Mike did all of those special effects, while those who know this answer will be amazed at his patience.

Overall the film is wonderfully cohesive. The small effects shorts serve as windows into Mike's imagination. The eye-candy shown during the story charms the mind instead of bewildering it (as psychedelic eye-candy often does). The off-the-wall humor and giddy music shows us how Mike's experiences in filmmaking are fun, wonderful adventures. The film shows Mike's internal struggles without appearing ridiculous. If you want to watch something different and good, watch this.


This is the perfect movie to cheer you up when you're feeling blue. Almost everyone I have shown it to ends up smiling. There are so many things to notice that you can watch it again and again. (I also recommend Jittlov's many short movies, such as Animato, Good Grief and the original short version of the WoSaT. Grab any copy you can find-- they're not in stores and I had to beg to get mine.)


Yes, I am one of those users who see a bad film and go out and complain about it, never saying GOOD things about the films we LIKE... so I decided to rectify.

The Wizard of Speed and Time is a great movie. It puts a big, fat Libertarian smile on this Libertarian face of mine. It makes me want to go out and be a filmmaker. It makes me want to go out and land a helicopter on "That Big Green Plastic Rock".

It makes me want to follow my dreams and follow my heart., (thanks to a good amount of brainwashing, courtesy of the green man himself, the wonderful Mike Jittlov)

So see the movie, "You'll see dancing, romancing, financing, fencing, crowd scenes.. chase scenes... this is the motion picture with EVERYTHING.... it's even got the kitchen sink! It's the kind of movie YOU would make, if you didn't have anything better to do!"

**grin** Thanks


I'd have to say that this is easily my favorite movie of all time. it's a terrific parody of the inner workings of Hollywood, and it's backed up my absolutely amazing animation and special effects by Mr. Jittlov, who also does a wonderful job as the main character (himself), and the police dog. The producer does a good job acting as the producer (as he should!).

Summary: See it! you'll like it! i promise.


Great fun for adults and children alike. I wore out my video copy by pausing during the stop motion animations to find the hidden subliminal messages in most of them. No satanic messages, just feel-good thoughts.


Try to watch it a million times. It will still be amazingly cool. This Film shows Stanley Kubrick (Rest in Peace, god be with you), James Cameron, Orson Wells, Steven Spielberg and all the other directors who is the master of details...

"May all Your Good Dreams and Fine Wishes Come True!"


This movie is a great, fun time. There's nothing serious about it, and there are no great characters or plot twists. What you get instead is an enjoyable "sit back and relax" kind of movie. "The Wizard of Speed and Time" is a monument to the lost art of stop-motion animation. The potential of this medium is fully exploited here, with some truly amazing special effects. It's also a very funny movie.


I saw pieces that were incorporated into the film on a Walt Disney telecast, titled "The Possible Impossible," or something of that sort. It was Mike Jitlov's marching tripods and biting clapper slates. Walt was the host of the show, and he explained that by using movie techniques, it was possible to present things that couldn't really happen.

Having had to improvise some low-cost special effects for an industrial film I did in the early 1970s, I sympathize with anyone who has limited cash and great ambition. Mr. Jitlov has done outstanding visual work in the film-within-the-film, and some excellent work in the rest of the opus.

A version of the short piece was shown at a New England Science Fiction society convention I was attending, so I got another glimpse of the picture. When the final (later) version of the film was released, I realized it's a one-of-a-kind film.

The feature is entertaining, and carries the viewer along with the story, which is full of Hollywood in-jokes. Even if you know nothing about the world of film, the movie still entertains.

Although the gentle story carries the viewer along, the real feature is the vast number of special effects scenes throughout the opus. They are sociometric eye candy worth repeated viewings.

Worth watching. Worth tracking down to watch.


For a movie with a lot of silliness, this movie has soul. It's not Citizen Kane but that's not the intention. If you like Pee Wee's Big Adventure or UHF, you'll probably like this. The intent here is to entertain, nothing more...but also, nothing less. And it succeeds.

The one word that best describes this film is "whimsical." There is, however, obvious frustration that underlies this film. You can tell that Jittlov is both a fan of watching movies as well as making them, and it's clear that he is fairly exasperated with the things that get in the way of movie-making.

Here, he skewers the excesses of Hollywood, most of which film fans are at least passingly familiar with - unreasonable union regulations (and exclusivity), filming permits, shady film executives, and just getting someone to look at your work and give you a shot.

From the start, we're on Jittlov's side. And this is why the movie works. Some of the jokes are corny, but again, they're kind of supposed to be. But there's a lot here that's genuinely funny too.

Mostly though this is a visual treat. The film is packed with visuals - even the sets (Jittlov's room for example) are interesting to look at. From riding a suitcase through Los Angeles to running pretty much literally around the world at high speed, the uncynical love for "movie magic" shines through.

And it would be wrong not to mention the presence of J.R. "BoB" Dobbs, the one true living slackmaster, stenciled on the side of a van. And this is appropriate because this is definitely a film about the film industry as an extension of The Conspiracy, stealing the slack away from the passionate, creative people who just want to make an honest film.

Mike Jittlov - I know you must look at the comments here and I want you to know, I'm on your side. Thanks for making this movie. It was a lot of fun. Sorry about the suits. Sorry about the soul-sucking "Con." And I hope you get an opportunity to make something else for us soon! This movie is a pure-hearted anthem for every independent film maker or effects guy ever who just wanted to do it for the love of it. And it's a hoot. If you're looking for something light but entertaining and visually interesting, this would be a good pick.


Mike Jitlov is a lovable genius of animation. The Wizard of Speed and Time, with its silly humor, fun special effects and really catchy theme song is worth seeing once if you have a short attention span and several times if you root for the "little guy".

Wizard makes fun of the film industry's obnoxious red tape and the heartlessness of money-grubbing studio executives, while highlighting the generous spirit of friends and of directors who want what's good for a film but have their hands tied by the stuffy studio.

The grand finale of this film is worth sitting through some very slow parts. For those who have this movie on video or DVD, I suggest using the slow-motion option to read some of the cute subliminal messages found throughout the finale.


IMHO, this is a great movie. It's fun for the whole family and has some fantastic special effects, as well as a good old-fashioned love story where the hero overcomes the bad guys and winds up with his true love.


"The Wizard Of Speed And Time" is a low-budget movie loosely based on the trivial adventures of a special effects person (Jitlov) who is making a short movie. I sought out this movie after reading many glowing reviews on IMDb. Despite wanting to like it, I found the hype to be unfounded.

Dated music and visuals along with cheesy humor screams out "80's movie". Inexpensive early synthesizers in simplistic arrangements were used for a large part of the music. For visuals, somewhat crude stop-motion photography is the order of the day. Never do you finish a scene without having to digest the awkward and unnatural effects. Even keeping in mind that this is a low budget movie, we never cross over into cherishing the effects for what they are, and instead lose whatever redeeming value they could have otherwise had.

As a fan of Airplane!, I enjoy 'low-brow' humor. Unfortunately, "Wizard" is not nearly in the same league. Puns sometimes replaced any real attempt at adding any substantial humor. Scenes showing Jitlov's dealings with various unions (complete with double-talk representatives) left me cold, despite their humorous target. The various flat-lined police scenes (often involving mock-chase scenes) produced groans instead of laughs. In other parts, clever visuals took the place of real humor. Often, a small effect (for instance, glasses that glowed at the right moment) inspired a smile. Unfortunately, cute effects can't bridge over the large gaps in humor this movie has, and "Wizard" never goes beyond a level that only pre-teen audiences can enjoy.

"Wizard" contains Jitlov's running commentary on Hollywood unions. Jitlov reduces the movie industry to a two-dimensional caricature of evil and incompetence. In one case, a movie producer ambushes Jitlov's efforts at every turn in order to win a bet. "Wizard" is also laced with running themes about Hollywood union lock-down. For example, studio executives use creative accounting to allow the non-union Jitlov to make his short while remaining out of union sight. "This potentially political statement lacks the bite it needed to come across as anything but fluff. Instead, it becomes lost 'in the mix'.

Script limitations left the actors out in the cold. Philip Michael Thomas ("Miami Vice") played a bit-part policeman that had no significant role in the plot other than to chase some conveniently placed bad guys. His character ends up slapped on top of a script held together by loosely-based vignettes. Stephen Stucker (who nearly stole the show in "Airplane!") had even less screen time. His last screen appearance, Stucker's comic talents unfortunately are never allowed to surface. In the end, Jitlov spends too much time in front of the screen with his only 'adequit' acting skills.

Some have made much of the movie showing behind-the-scenes glimpses of how special effects are done. Nobody is going to walk away from "Wizard" a special effects expert. While "Wizard" held a few moments of interest (notably, the 'running on the wall' effect), most everything fell into simple 'common sense'.

In conclusion, this isn't the 'diamond in the rough' that some have suggested. I wanted to like "Wizard", but the many flaws quickly grew tedious. If you do come across it, take a look. Just don't get your hopes too high.


With all the hoopla I'd heard about this movie before its release, I was expecting a lot more. Instead, I was treated to a pity party thrown by the guest of honor. I was told it was going to be an expanded version of the short of the same name, so I was expecting that. Instead, I got a movie on how tough it is to break into show business, and how the little guy always gets trod upon and ground into the dirt by the bigwigs. Please. I've seen that done 100 times before and 1,000 times better. There was little to engage me; it wasn't "The Wizard of Speed and Time", but "The Making of 'The Wizard of Speed and Time'."


I found this movie and movie number six (Wish Maker Jirachi) way different than the other pokemon movies. They were kind of more mature. Anyway, this movie was really good and I just watched it today on Kidswb. I think what really made this a good movie was the fact that it had featured pokemon from outer space, which was interesting and brings a whole new world to Pokemon. I recommend this movie because its feature length, It has two really strong pokemon in it, one secret pokemon that has something to do with snorlax, and its a lot of fun to watch. The only faulty thing I didn't like about it was that it lacked good popular music like the other four before pokemon: Jirachi Wish Maker. I think good rock songs would have made it earn the true title as a Pokemon Movie.


This movie was the type of pokemon movie I always wanted to see. A lot of fun. I was hooked from the first battle scene. After all the previous ones I've seen (havent seen 3 & 4 yet) this one I found the best.

I like the intro to these movies as they give a brief explanation of pokemon, this movie showed a few scenes from the previous movies.

The starting fight between the alien poke and the earth one was cool, showing off the aliens strength for a little while.

I liked the few scenes just with poke doing amusing things with feelgood background music.

Ash is the focus of course, a few new characters and poke are introduced, and its good to see Tory make friends with those plus and minus pokemon.

After the end you see everyone board a train and go their separate ways which ended it nicely.

Really enjoyable movie in the hi tech city.


This is great! Thanks to computer graphics and animations, this movie appeared on TV. Just like every Pokemon movies, Miramax Films made this movie associated with Kids WB! or 4 Kids Entertainment. But this time, the distributors are Walt Disney Pictures instead of Kids WB!. This surprised me, however, but different distributors has different ideas on the movie that they'll make. This is ab assumption, but it could be a fact.... Anyway, it's great to see a movie with different distributors with different ideas. Once again, thank you Pokemon for creating your 7th movie. I'm sorry that it's not as great as the 6th one (which was my most favorite one), but you'll do better. I trust you. Besides, every character has to play some role in every movies.


This poke'mon movie is my favorite by far. It scores at the top across the board: great story, great battles, great music, great characters, and great new villains : Deoxys and Rayqueza. The opening fight between Deoxys and Rayqueza always reminds me of Godzilla, my other favorite Japanese export. Deoxy's infiltration of the city is impressive, as is its multiplication scene. This movie is one of the darker movies of the series, hearkening back to Mewtwo Strikes Back and setting the tone for the next series, Battle Frontier, and would be a good watch even for someone who doesn't like Poke'mon or anime'. All in all, top notch, an improvement over the previous Jirachi the Wishmaker, also a much more mature story. The battle at the end between the two Deoxys and Rayqueza while Ash tries to shut down the security droids is very suspenseful. Top notch!


Well, this movie, in summation, is another 1 hour waste of my time. The movie had absolutely no guidelines, and starts out in total confusion. The ninth movie in the series follows a Pokemon named Deoxys. Supposedly, it is from outer space and comes to earth looking for its friend. Of course, it has to kill or capture every single thing in its way. The infamous Team Rocket is also in this, but their role is very minute and does not have any purpose. They are captured in the beginning and spend the entirety of the film in a prison. May, the fill-in for Misty has a admirer named Sid, who obviously, she does not like "that way". Ash goes to this Battle Tower and meets a child named Tory, who has a fear of Pokemon due to prior experiences. They are teamed up in a double duel and lose which causes Ash to become upset and Tory to run away. This movie is no different than any of the others. They all involved a gigantic Pokemon set on destroying the world, when in fact they have "good" intentions. Shoot me.


What's not to like - Astaire-Rogers dancing to "I Don't Dance, Don't Ask Me", ocean liners crossing the Atlantic, trains racing across northern France, jazz bands rehearsing in Paris clubs, stupendous art deco sets, a couturier's elegant salon, serenading to balalaikas, stunning models privately displaying satin gowns, Russian princes, "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" sung by the beautiful Irene Dunne, an elegant Old Russian restaurant with its frescoes, fashion show that incorporates Astaire and Rogers dancing, Irene Dunne's warmth, a witty script, a Broadway smash hit brought to the screen - geez, what a movie! It is only recently that I've begun to enjoy musicals. The ones I like are the light ones - not the ones incorporating social issues which I feel musicals are ill-equipped to handle.

But a light musical comedy - with exquisite dancing, charming leads, swank clothes, elegant sets, witty dialogue - WOW! And this is definitely such a musical - absolutely charming.

The four leads are wonderfully cast. Irene Dunne reminds me of Greer Garson in having a certain soulfulness combined with innate gentility and enormous warmth - Dunne also happens to have had a world-class operatic singing voice (that in later movies, as operettas ceased to be appealing, was seldom heard). There is something so very vulnerable about a wounded Irene Dunne character - and she is wonderful in this part.

Randolph Scott has a big, clean, very handsome, American quality that is also wonderfully suited to this part - one in which his character is candid, straightforward, easily swayed by others who are sophisticated -but at a certain point will act decisively when he comes to realize his judgment has been mistaken.

Fred Astaire's subordinate comic supporting role is suited well by the enormous difference in size between himself and Scott - and obviously his dancing and his easy way with humorous lines is just wonderful.

The 24 year old Ginger Rogers may be the biggest revelation to me - it's not just that she can dance astonishingly well, that she is wonderful (and wonderfully funny) with accents, that she can sing songs equally comically or romantically (and with great gestures), that she is very VERY funny, whip-smart with dialogue,, but she perfectly suits the job of one hustling for jobs, adapting to all circumstances, rough and ready -- and extremely aware at all times.

I think studio heads really saw Rogers' amazing abilities through the end of World War II (after which she was shamefully abandoned) - she seldom played the "classy woman" and we instead find her as a shop girl, prisoner on furlough, society wannabe, entertainer. I would like to have seen her play in her career, a part in which she more deliberately seductive (like Barbara Stanwyck or Joan Crawford, Miriam Hopkins or Bette Davis often did) but alas.

You'll like this - just relax and feel yourself enthralled.


I have been lucky enough to have this fashion parade comedy musical film in my life since the mid 70s when New Zealand TV stations sent all their old 16mm prints to Australia for junking. Instead, most of these 500 prints were found be in mint full length condition. As a result they were hired out, and I operated a cinema and ran dozens and dozens of them.

Among this incredible library was ROBERTA which seemed to always be programmed every other month or two. So my first viewing was in a lovely old cinema with a perfect print and a big audience. I have never recovered and never want to. Every time I see ROBERTA I swoon from the sheer beauty of every part of this gorgeous film. 30 years later I can watch it on tape on TV and still get the same overwhelming emotional bliss knowing what it is doing to me. I admire the fashionable production and the team so much because they knew what they were doing to the audience too: presenting a sublime musical confection that is exquisite enough to make the viewer pass out from aching satisfaction. Find it, see it, love it. Have this film in your life and just absorb every second of its absolute perfection.


I found this to be a very entertaining musical with some decent mixture of songs, comedy and romance. There are no less than three leading ladies and they all look good. Two of them are big names: Irene Dunne and Ginger Rogers.

There's Fred Astaire in here, too, so I guess we can call this another "Astaire- Rogers film." If so, I think it's one of their best and certainly one of their most underrated. You don't hear much about this movie, and that's unfair.

Rogers and Astaire both have some funny lines in this film and I wish Ginger's role had been bigger. She and Astaire do a couple of tap dance numbers that are excellent - some of their best work together. Dunne's first two songs aren't bad but you have the rest. Her soprano voice almost broke my eardrums, especially with "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes."

Randolph Scott, Helen Westley and Claire Dodd also star in this dated-but-generally fun movie.


Here is a movie musical what is a movie musical! Forget the story! It is slight at best, involving a he-man (Scott) inheriting a designing house in Paris. It comes complete with assistant (Dunne) and a phony countess (Rogers) and a band (complete with Astaire as leader) which has come to Paris with him. Why he is traveling with the band, or why Rogers is getting away with the phony royalty bit is never really explained. To be honest, the first half of the movie is totally missable and rather confusing. Scott as a love interest? Unable to see it. Dunne as a singer? Hard to take. Having said that, then, there is the dancing of Astaire and Rogers, unmatched by anyone before or since. No wonder tap and ballroom dancing has gone somewhat out of vogue. Once you see these two perform, everything and everyone else is a letdown. The music of Jerome Kern is some of the best ever put out for a movie. If you're under 35, you may never have had the opportunity to listen to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", "I Won't Dance" and the rest. Do yourself a favor - watch this movie just for the music and dancing. A wag once said that Fred Astaire looked so good in a tuxedo that he rented himself out to them. No one else looks so at ease in top hat and tails. The clothes are dated, maybe, but you get an idea of what real glamour can be. Yards and yards of exotic looking material draped over some delicious looking models, including a brief glimpse of the redoubtable Lucille Ball! Well worth the time it takes to watch!!


Irene Dunne, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers and Randolph Scott shine in "Roberta," a 1935 film directed by William Seite, based on the Broadway play, with music by Jerome Kern This isn't a typical Astaire-Rogers film, so if you're looking for that, you may be disappointed. The emphasis here is on fashion, and on the design house of Roberta - in reality, John Kent's (Randolph Scott) Aunt Minnie (Helen Westley), a dressmaker who found success in Paris. Astaire plays Kent's friend, Huckleberry Haines, a bandleader. Irene Dunne is Stephanie, the head designer at Roberta's. Actually, she and her doorman cousin Ladislaw (Victor Varooni) are Russian royalty. Rogers plays Countess Schwarwenka, a troublemaking client who's recognized by Huckleberry as Lizzie Gatz, an old girlfriend from back home. The Countess gets Hucklebery and his band a job at the Cafe Russe, and Stephanie and John find they're interested in one another. Then Roberta dies, and John inherits the design shop.

The film is filled with not only beautiful music but the fashions of the day in gorgeous art deco settings, making for a very sophisticated and polished look. Astaire and Rogers are actually comic support, but they're knockouts.

The music consists of some familiar tunes, including the haunting "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," sung by Irene Dunne and later danced by Astaire and Rogers, "Lovely to Look At," sung by Dunne and then danced by Astaire and Rogers, "Yesterdays," sung by Irene Dunne, and, of course, "I Won't Dance" - but they do. Astaire sings the lively "Let's Begin" as well.

This enchanting musical was re-made in 1952 as "Lovely to Look At," but somehow, it's not as good, lacking the cast. "Roberta" shows up on TCM occasionally. Don't miss it.


This movie has everything: frocks, dancing, songs.... I love those "Russian" songs by Kern, and Irene Dunne really can sing. She can act too - see the scene where professionalism forces her to be polite to John's fiancé. Fred and Ginger's dancing is transcendent and one of the great works of art of Western civilisation for the past 3,000 years. And Fred plays the piano too! (And is very funny.) He sweeps Ginger off her feet in the last scene, but when she proposes to him he's inarticulate - but he says yes, of course. And who wrote his amusing descriptions of the frocks? Could it have been Kern's old Broadway partner, Pelham Grenville Wodehouse? The only flaw is a running gag about a band member with a falsetto voice who tries to sound butch. How the groundlings must have laughed!


"Roberta" was out of circulation for many years because of an inferior MGM remake "Lovely to Look At" (1952) - the studio did not want competition between the two films. Astaire and Rogers had been such a success in "Flying Down to Rio", that today the true stars of the film are almost forgotten (Gene Raymond and Dolores Del Rio) and they also shone in "The Gay Divorcée" (1934). RKO had bought "Roberta", as a vehicle for Irene Dunne. It had been a mild Broadway success for Jerome Kern and Fred Astaire's part was a composite of the roles played by Bob Hope and George Murphy. Ginger's part had been played by Lyda Roberti.

When Huck Haines and his band are stranded in Paris his pal John (Randolph Scott) looks up his aunt (Helen Wesley) to see if she can help them out. She is the creator of Roberta Fashion House - the most exclusive designs in Paris. Her lovely designer Stephanie (Irene Dunne) is having trouble with Tanka (Ginger Rogers) and because she works in a cabaret, John thinks Tanka could get Huck and his band a job. Huck soon discovers that Tanka is his old friend from back in Indiana - Lizzie Gatz!!! Tanka gets them a job so they will keep her secret.

The sparkling "I'll Be Hard to Handle" is first introduced by Ginger singing in a mock foreign accent, then she and Fred execute a joyous tap dance that is part of a rehearsal. Aunt Roberta is very sick but she always gets Stephanie to sing to her - this time the haunting "Yesterdays". She dies in her sleep and John inherits the dress shop. He wants Stephanie to have the shop but she will only go into partnership with him. John has definite ideas about what he likes and doesn't like.

Delightfully wicked Claire Dodd plays Sophie, John's snooty fiancée. She arrives in Paris as soon as she hears he has an inheritance. She is looking for a dress to impress John and by mistake sees a dress that John has rejected as too vulgar. Stephanie tries to dissuade her from buying it but Sophie is adamant. John is disgusted when he sees it on her and they break up for the last time. He is also angry at Stephanie for selling the dress (which she did under duress).

"I Won't Dance" starts off with a sizzling piano solo by Fred Astaire, followed by an equally sizzling solo dance by Mr. Astaire. Ravishing Irene Dunne sings the beautiful "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" with balalaika accompaniment. With both John and Stephanie staying away, the business starts to run down. Stephanie comes back to save the day and puts on a musical fashion show.

To the tune of "Lovely to Look At" models parade the gowns (there is even a young Lucille Ball in a beautiful feathered cape!!!) Stephanie is back in another beautiful gown, singing the gorgeous "Lovely to Look At". Fred and Ginger then dance to "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes". John thinks Stephanie is married to Ladislaw - that's why she is a princess. Stephanie declares she was born a princess and Ladislaw is her cousin!!! Everything ends happily with Fred and Ginger dancing to "I Won't Dance".

"When you dance you're charming and so gentle/Especially when you're doing "The Continental"!!!

Highly Recommended.


For several reasons, this is the comparatively hidden entry in the classic Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers filmography, but this 1935 film has been blissfully released in a fairly clean print transfer on DVD, both as an individual purchase and as part of a complete Astaire-Rogers DVD set. With great songs from the Jerome Kern songbook, the movie certainly contains the high-caliber musical quality of the other films starring the dancing pair. The challenge is really in the cumbersome story set-up and in the simple fact that Astaire and Rogers play decidedly secondary characters in the story.

The film's primary focus is on Stephanie, an exiled Russian princess working as a sales assistant in the House of Roberta, the most fashionable couturière in all of Paris. It is run by a lovable dowager referred to as Aunt Minnie, whose nephew Jack Kent ends up in Paris after his band gets fired right after they disembark from their transatlantic voyage. Astaire plays Jack's best friend, bandleader "Huck" Haines, and Rogers is a faux-Polish countess named Sharvenka a.k.a. Lizzie Gatz, Huck's ex-dancing partner who has become a Paris nightclub headliner. The various romantic pairings occur, but an unexpected tragedy strikes with Minnie's death and her wish to leave the shop to the woefully unqualified Jack, who of course needs Stephanie's fashion sense to make the company continue to thrive.

The plot threads start to feel unwieldy after a while, but journeyman director William A. Seiter is smart enough to know when to include the musical interludes. Astaire-Rogers fans may be disappointed to find them dance only twice in the film together, the first well after the half-hour mark in an informal but energetic tap routine and the second near the end in their standard formal wear. Astaire has only one solo to "I Won't Dance"; and perhaps to pacify fans, there is a brief reprisal dance inserted after the story's actual ending though dramatically it makes little sense. Irene Dunne gets to sing three songs - a Russian lullaby and three Kern gems ("Yesterdays", "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" and "Lovely to Look At") - in her bell-like operatic soprano, pretty in itself but seemingly at odds with the jazzy sound of the rest of the score.

A year before she let her inner screwball comedienne emerge in "Theodora Goes Wild", a severe-looking Dunne is saddled with a stiff, uninteresting part as Stephanie, and she is not aided much by a bumptious Randolph Scott, who has to play the somewhat ignorant and judgmental Jack on a relative one note. Astaire and a particularly funny Rogers, on the other hand, are breezy and sharp with the little screen time they do get. Little-remembered Claire Dodd predictably plays Jack's slithery fiancée Sophie, while character actress Helen Westley plays Minnie with her amusing gruffness intact (she was to reunite with Dunne the next year in James Whale's classic version of "Showboat").

There's an extended fashion show at the end, and you can easily spot a bleached blonde, baby-faced Lucille Ball in ostrich feathers among the models. The resulting movie shows the whole to be somewhat less than the sum of its parts, but it's still worthwhile for the talent involved in the production. The 2006 DVD contains some interesting curios as extras - the original trailer (in relatively poor condition); a full-color twenty-minute 1935 musical short, "Starlit Days the Lido", with oddly attired variety acts entertaining bemused Hollywood stars like Clark Gable and Robert Montgomery; a vintage cartoon, "The Calico Dragon" about a little girl's dream of her stuffed animals coming to life to protect her from the dragon; and an eleven-minute audio-only radio promo for the movie.


Enjoyable musical comedy with a predictable Americans-in-exotic locale plot, but it's all done in a fun way and with great music, besides. Some good dialogue and well done characters by Astaire, Rogers, and Dunne, who looks as lovely as she ever was and sings the show's more operetta style songs (and thus its best, since we're talking about the great Jerome Kern). She's romantically paired with Randolph Scott (!.... sorry but this takes some getting used to for western fans) who plays a football player with gusto! Some nice dance sequences supplied by Astaire and his partner.


It seems really bizarre that after starring in "The Gay Divorcée," Rodgers and Astaire went back to playing supporting roles in this one. Leads Randolph Scott are Irene Dunne are fine, but Rodgers and Astaire are on blazing whenever they're on screen, so Scott and Dunne get pushed into the background.

The story is contrived and theatrical and not a particularly exciting one. However, four great songs and dances lift it into the must see category: "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," "Lovely to Look At," "I Won't Dance," and I'll Be Hard to Handle." Please note that the last three have lyrics by Dorothy Fields. She may have been the greatest lyricist of the 20th century with songs like "Sunnyside of the Street," "A Fine Romance," "I'm in the Mood for Love" and "Big Spender" to her credit.

The movie is a little dated and tedious at an hour and forty minutes, but, at least 30 of those minutes with Ginger and Fred are enchanting.

"Nous Sommes étonné." as Fred says in the movie.


"Roberta" is fairly typical of the movies set in Astairerogersland (as one author called their world). What is atypical is that their roles are not the main ones. Fred and Ginger supply the vehicle to get the actual leads, Randolph Scott and Irene Dunne, together; their own romance is more of a subplot. They do, of course, sing and dance, most excellently....

Dunne provides the showstopper number, with an excellent rendition of "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" performed to balalaikas. She also supposedly supplies many of the costume designs for the characters in the plot (which were actually created by Bernard Newman, and were wonderful). Watch for a young Lucille Ball in a frothy, feathered evening gown in the final fashion-show sequence.


If you like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers you must see this movie if only for the "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" dance sequence...in a word...glorious. A platinum blonde Lucille Ball is one of the models in a fashion show that features stunning gowns and furs of the era.


Irene Dunne sings two Jerome Kern numbers, "Smoke gets in your eyes" and "Lovely to Look at" and is just that lovely. Fred dances up a storm and so does Ginger, but the latter is cast as an ordinary Indiana singer who masquerades as a Polish Countess. Irene Dunne is a fashion designer for the house of Roberta. She is much classier as a Russian émigré Princess who downplays her aristocratic origins. Fred is a band leader and hoofer for the Wabash Indianans and arrives in France to play at a Russian émigré club owner's café who is disappointed that they are not Indians. Fred grew up with Ginger in Indiana, but puts own foreign airs to land a job at the same café. His best friend and football coach played by Randolph Scott goes along for the ride and ends up as Irene Dunne's business partner. Plenty of room for entanglements follow.


Roberta (1935) is my favorite of the Astaire/Rogers musicals from the 1930's. The plot may be criticized as silly, but then so can the plot of most musicals. And I watch a musical for light entertainment, not for serious social commentary. Although the Astaire/Rogers dances are few, they are choice. No flashy ensemble extravaganzas that last too long to be enjoyed. No unbelievably contrived dances or costumes. And Irene Dunne's vocals are delightful to my ear. The soundtrack has not survived the years as clearly as I would like, but the movie as a whole is one that I return to over and over again to watch all the way through, and I can't say that of any other Astaire/Rogers film. Perhaps that is because the entire cast does a job I find enjoyable.


What an excellent film. I was rather surprised, it being one of the few Fred Astaire musicals I had never seen and recently reading some adverse comment to the effect that it was for the completist only! Heresy, I say for this is possibly Ginger Rogers' best performance and for that matter one of Astaire's best too. She is fresh faced, funny and very happy to dance. He seems spontaneous, sings and does not show off like he may in some other films of his. Also, mercy me, I didn't know that Irene Dunne had a voice like that. Perhaps it seems odd that she should be singing a lullaby but never mind she signs it beautifully, two or three times and as for the famous rendition of Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, worth as they say the price of admission alone. As well as all that we have the costumes. Some splendid, some silly but what a variety. Interesting that the most sexy one is considered inappropriate but |I found it difficult to properly work that out with this being a 30s film supposedly set in the 20s. Anyway all good stuff. Tremendous entertainment.


'Roberta (1935)' marked the third teaming of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and, like 'Flying Down to Rio (1933),' it suffers from a studio oversight: RKO hadn't yet realized that Fred and Ginger were the main attraction. This, of course, is to take nothing away from Irene Dunne, who is first-billed, a talented actress and a genuine box-office draw, but, with the apology of hindsight, it's not Dunne for whom I'm watching this film {just out of interest, this was my eighth Astaire/Rogers film  now I need only to track down 'The Gay Divorcée (1934)' and 'Carefree (1938)'}. The main plot concerns All-American football player John Kent (Randolph Scott), who has arrived in Paris with his friend Huckleberry Haines (Astaire), who has brought along his orchestra, the Wabash Indianians. While John falls in love with fashion designer Stephaine (Dunne), Haines reacquaints with childhood sweetheart Lizzie Gatz (Rogers), who is now, for show-business purposes, sporting a fake European accent and the prestigious title of Countess Scharwenka.

Randolph Scott appeared with Astaire in two 1930s musicals, and it's interesting to observe how their respective roles changed in such a short time. In 'Roberta,' he is clearly the leading man, and makes a good go at it, too  John Kent is sincere, likable and slightly naive in that Frank Capra All-American sense. Astaire is there to provide slightly goofy comedic support, and his musical routines help obscure the fact that Scott has no musical talents to complement Irene Dunne's incredible singing voice. Just one year later in 'Follow the Fleet (1936)'  after 'Top Hat (1935)' had made box-office gold of Fred and Ginger  Scott is similarly relegated to a romantic supporting role, having to settle for Ginger's nondescript sister (Harriet Hilliard). The bulk of the plot in 'Roberta' concerns John's complicated romance with Stephanie, and it occasionally gets bogged down by it. Still, whenever Fred and Ginger get tapping they kick up a storm, with memorable musical numbers including "I'll Be Hard to Handle," "Lovely to Look At" and "I Won't Dance."

Though Dunne certainly has an excellent singing voice (and it is, indeed, her own voice), the contrast between her solemn, operatic songs, and Fred and Ginger's playful vaudeville routines is too great to sit comfortably together. This, and the over-dependence on a central love story, makes the film enjoyable but uneven. As did many of the Astaire/Rogers films, 'Roberta' proved successful with audiences because it consciously defied the woeful economic conditions in which the United States still found itself. Aside from an elevator that doesn't quite get there, the hotels and nightclubs of Paris are glittering hot-spots of class and high fashion. Much effort was evidently spent designing the range of outfits that appeared in the film, and, had I cared one bit about fashion, I might have found myself in Heaven  as it were, the fashion show itself proved a little tedious. In any case, it's fascinating to note how times have changed since the 1930s. That controversial dress that Randolph Scott dismissed as "vulgar?" I thought it was a knockout!


This is one of my favorite Fred-and-Ginger movies. The music is wonderful, the dancing glorious, and the gowns are to die for. The Art Deco sets and the fashions transport you right into 1935. I can watch this again and again.


I'm not sure I get the lower-than-usual IMDb voter rating for "Roberta" vs. "Shall We Dance" (1937) and some of the other weaker Astaire & Rogers films. The script and dialog are =far= better than "SWD" and "The Story of Vernon & Irene Castle" (1939) even if the musical numbers are not quite up to say, "A Damsel in Distress" (1937), "Follow the Fleet" (1936), or the remarkable, if somewhat technically inferior, "Flying Down to Rio" (1933).

I imagine that R&A fans might have wanted more dancing and less Irene Dunne and Randolph Scott ("Randolph Scott!"), but the lead love story featured two of the =very= hottest stars of the day, much as Gene Raymond and Delores Del Rio (in "FDTR") were in '33.

Question: Did Dunne insist on singing in the old "bel canto" style to try to keep up with Rogers? She shouldn't have. Ginger's waaaaay out front here, and no one's going to catch her.

In fact, this =is= the best of Rogers's acting performances in the entire series. Dancer, glib wisecracker, foreign accents and comedic timing galore. That, and boy, did Bernie Newman put her in some utterly =breathtaking= art deco outfits.

Speaking of fashions, if you're into =that=, Roberta's a film about a fashion designer, and the fashion show scenes are black & white mind blowers.

Musically, the memorable tunes include "Lovely to Look At," "I'll be Hard to Handle" and "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," respectively by Eddie Duchin, Gerry Kern and Gerry Kern; not exactly a couple of lightweights... and Al Newman handles them superbly.

The digitally restored print they've been showing on TCM is terrific, btw.


My take on this movie: Helen Westley great. Randolph Scott a tall hunka sweetness. Ginger Rogers has nice accent. Irene Dunne lovely singer. Fred Astaire great, especially playing those organ fingers. Indianians and Indians a nice touch tongue twister. The elevator being stuck always gets some laughs out of me.

I also like the 1950s remake: "Lovely to Look At".

I loved the little black "vulgar" dress, the front at least. The back I would have re-designed to have more substance around the waistline.

Scott's fiancé/gf was a miserable, cold fish, cold block of ice. I am glad she got talked into getting the terrible dress. That was so funny, and an ironic comeuppance for her.

A sweet movie. 10/10.


I grew up in the 1940s, and my sister and I went to the movies all the time. I recalled the name Irene Dunne, but I had never seen her in a movie. Well, last night I did in "Roberta" (1935). What a voice, like a nightingale. Her rendition of "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" was the most beautiful version that I have ever heard. I found myself wishing she would sing for at least another half hour.

There were also the exquisite, exciting, beautiful gowns and furs. My own mother was a real beauty in the l940s, and seeing the fashions of that time really made me wish I was a woman during that era rather than a child. Then too, I loved the sets, done predominantly in white and ever so glamorous!

As if that wasn't enough of a treat we had the exquisite team of Astaire and Rodgers. Their numbers were breathtaking, two bodies that moved as one, smooth, free-flowing, what grace! I found the storyline boring, but the talent and beauty that filled the screen sure made up for that.


The Broadway musical that most people associate with Jerome Kern after Showboat is Roberta. The plot you see here was expanded quite a bit because on stage the whole thing takes place in the USA where the Randolph Scott character inherits a fashion designing business. RKO decided to invest a little glamor into the project by transporting the whole thing to Paris and it was a wise move, though the film never got further to Paris than the RKO back lot.

Both the parts that Helen Westley and Randolph Scott play on stage are singing roles. Helen is the aunt from whom Scott inherits Madame Roberta's Dress Design when she dies. On stage it was played by Fay Templeton in her farewell performance and Jerome Kern and Otto Harbach wrote Yesterdays for her. In the film version Irene Dunne sings the song.

Besides Irene, the rest of the vocal chores are taken by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in their second film together. Astaire's part on Broadway was done by Bob Hope. Because Astaire was doing the part a dance number was called for so Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields wrote I Won't Dance for Astaire. Fred also partners with Ginger Rogers in I'll be Hard to Handle.

Irene Dunne sings Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, one of Jerome Kern's most well known ballads about misplaced love. Folks of my generation might remember that the song got a second life as a doo-wop ballad during the first phase of rock and roll. Such songs as You're Devastating and The Touch of Your Hand got relegated however to just part of the instrumental background.

Still half a Kern score is better than a full one by most other composers. This would be the last time that Astaire and Rogers were supporting players in a film. The next time out they would be the leads.

During a drunk scene Randolph Scott sings a couple of bars of I Won't Dance. That may have been the limit of his singing career on screen and a good thing too.

On Broadway Ray Middleton played Scott's part and Tamara Geva who was killed entertaining troops overseas was the female lead. Can you imagine a show though that had besides those I already mentioned, Fred MacMurray, George Murphy, and Sydney Greenstreet all in the cast.

What a film that would have been.


Let's talk about 'Polarization' here a minute! This is one of those you either love it or hate it. I don't believe that there are too many in the middle. It's a tough spot to be in, when you are not a teen, to successfully understand the current teen crazes and fads, let alone the mindset! So it's trouble enough trying to capture this successfully when you are a big Hollywood mucky-muck like Altman . There is nothing wrong with writing a teenage comedy/ drama as an older writer, only thing that you will probably experience is the 'oldisms' in that writer's speech. Old phrases and ideas about life and other stuff. Some will say, 'Yeah, but teens are pretty universal'. But, the generations change due to many things. There was however Cameron Crow that set the high-school genre on it's 'ear' with with the creating of "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" which for me growing up back then was straight between the eyes! He hit it dead on, no doubt. Teenaged angst, the thought-line and logic that they use, etc.

In "O.C. & Stiggs" this carries a cast of great personalities from the past. A few of them, are gone now, but that is one of the reasons that I loved this now but not when I saw it then....how strange, but funny. It just did it's job over time and grew on me. These two are some what organized in their life and pursue ts, but bored with some things and upset at others. The problems and ideas for solutions that they have are fun, and the Arizona scenery to me, is nostalgic to see then all that has changed from what was a simpler time to be alive....the eighties. Enjoy this 1984 made and 1987 released cult classic. (***)


This movie is not for the masses. In fact, it's probably not even suitable for a major cult following. But if you see it, you'll either like it or hate it. Major plot developments happen off camera, or while multiple people are talking. Very typical Robert Altman style, but definitely more off-beat since it is based on two characters from National Lampoon magazine. If you're the kind of person that needs to identify with and/or like at least one character in the movie, you may find yourself searching throughout the whole film. Don't expect a pause in the action to laugh, which, if this movie agrees with you, you'll be doing often as these two teenagers deal with a bad situation through harassment and booze.


if you were a reader of National Lampoon's column "O.C. & Stiggs" which ran for a while back around the late 70's/early 80's then you will probably like it a lot. It has a lot of fine talent in it, but if you're not in on the joke, then it probably isn't for you.


Like most Altman films, you either love it or hate it. Unlike most Altman films, this one barely registers on anyone's radar. I had to trade a stolen kidney for the worn VHS copy that I own, and I've invested in thousands of dollars of technology, not to mention wasted tens of lives, trying to encode the film to DVD for a more permanent archive. I love this film. It is only barely like the monstrously wonderful short story upon which it is based. It does, though, has some really wonderful lines, and it is a complete self-indulgent hedonistic piece of nonsense. Dennis Hopper plays himself, and all the Altman regulars are playing themselves. There's even a cameo by Hal Philip Walker, a character from Altman's movie "Nashville." The obsession with Lobsters is remarkable. I'm not so sure the obsession with African music is, but it did lead me to a King Sunny Ade concert in Austin that will stand out as one of the best live shows I've ever seen. The Gila Monster is remarkable. The Schwab clan makes the movie. The whole thing...look, if you've ever lived anywhere in the southwest in the 80's, see this movie. Trade a kidney for it if necessary.


Need I say more? I think I have watched this movie consecutively more times than any other movie I have ever seen. It is a piece of cheesy 80's art at its finest. The embedded flashbacks make it a bit hard to follow the first 10 times you watch it, but make it pleasantly Warhol-esque especially once you know the majority of the lines. Watch it over and over again, then watch it some more. Make sure you watch it with a drink in your hand, but remember Schwab Insurance doesn't insure drinkers.

"You could have more fun than you've ever had in your entire life"

"Are you sure? I've got legos, you know."

Ogilvie Cromwell

O.C. to my friends


This is one of my all-time favorite Altman movies. Even though I was too young to have ever seen the O.C. & Stiggs saga in National Lampoon, I've been through two VHS copies of the movie. Dare I even hope that one day it might be available on DVD? I think hell would have to freeze over first. I had the chance to meet Daniel Jenkins about 12 years ago when he did a local production of Twelfth Night. Man, is this guy talented. I can't even remember how many different musical instruments this actor can play. I think my friend and I scared him a bit as we barraged him with ridiculous queries about O.C. & Stiggs at a question and answer session after the play. He's a teenage crush that has carried over for many, many years.


Tho this movie was uneven, the quirky humor was invigorating. I rated it 7, partly because there were some concepts I had not seen in movies previously.

The young leads were personable and presented their characters quite admirably. Their car itself becomes a personality in the show.

You will find several actors you haven't seen in years. (Some shine in the light of this movie; others, well... 'nuff said.)

The Music of "King Sunny Ade & His African Beats" was refreshing. The Juju Music was at the same time full of energy and joy... & was gentle almost like meditation.

If you are looking for a pleasant diversion, strongly unique in places, I highly recommend it.


Some might call this movie bad, but I call it a classic. Most 80's movies that are deeply lined with the stylings and hip hijinks of the day died with the 80's. This one was ahead of its time. Though no one character comes off as completely likable as in some traditional teeny-bopper entertainment, the directors walked a fine line with their characters between "80's Cool" and "80's Geek" The directors could have chosen to just fully make these characters super-cool, which would be a big turnoff if you're watching the movie in some decade OTHER than the 80's, but OC and Stiggs aren't super-cool they are just two teens who entertain themselves, and look kind of hopelessly geeky doing it. The unexplained antagonism of the Schwabs was daring for its severity and its mystery, but the portrayal of the Schwabs themselves made it snap into place. It was literally impossible to feel sorry for the Schwab family. Overall I say this movie was a schizophrenic laughingstock seething with the brand of random existential comedy that would be used much later in movies in more recent teen escapades like American Pie. It also reached back and had a feel of Cheech and Chong in it. Its no wonder this movie drew the comedic all-stars that it did in Curtin, Dooley, Mull, Waterston, and Dennis Hopper. Kudos on the musical appearance of King Sunny Ade and the African Beats. I tell ya, there's no obscure 80's movie I'd rather see for the first time flipping through Showtime at 4am than O.C. and Stiggs.


All the people and every thing appeared in this movie, is going wild and freely on their own way,and having no care about anything bit. Calling Africa, Drivin'a Lift-Up car, Lobster, Nuclear- Shelter, Wedding party, Machine-Gun, Love, Race, Sound, T-Shirts, and Summer. This movie and O.C.and Stiggs DO everything!! And it's a kind of Rock'n Roll much more than ;Beavis& Butt-head;Wayne&Garth;Bill&Ted I love this. I write again.


This film is fantastically understated and has within it the foundations of excellence.

O.C and Stiggs is what great film making is all about - bringing to life an environment that is high fiction but could truly exist somewhere.

Made in 1987, it has all the hall marks of a film made in the late sixties to early seventies. Good films of that time felt free and progressive.

Real classics kind of exist in a little world of their own, and this is just that sort.


ignore all other commentaries!! junior is your messiah and this flick is unbeatable.......consistantly hilarious and unpredictable, with music from King Sunny Ade + the Sunshine band.....stop staring at this screen, exit the building and find/borrow/beg/steal/pillage/conjure a copy of this movie for your personal viewage or die in the attempt.... do it now........


O.C. and Stiggs is one of my favorite movies. It is hilarious and awful at the same time -- exactly what every good comedy should be! Although it is hailed as one of Altman's worst films, I think it has a certain charm. It captures a feeling of the freedom of adolescence as well as the bizarre humor of true friendship. I can relate to much of their antics. The movie is at times downright meanspirited, but it is a MOVIE for Pete's sake, plus, it is nowhere near as raunchy as the National Lampoon articles it is based on.

In true Altman form, the dialogue is subtle and overlapping, and you may have to watch it a few times to get the best jokes. Bear with it! If you've got an off-kilter sense of humor you'll truly enjoy it!!


O.C. and Stiggs - the Altman flick that should have been a cult classic but never was. Based on a series of short stories appearing in National Lampoon, the movie is slow at some points (the dance scene for example), but it is easily made up for by the absurdly hysterical parts.

ex.

O.C.- "Are you guys veterans?" Sponson - "Does Ho Chi Minh eat Rice Krispies? ha, ha, ha, ha....

HANDS UP!!"

Take your time and think, remember that kid who everybody picked on relentlessly back in high school? Maybe you were that kid, even so everyone can appreciate Jon Cryer's role as the little spaz we all loved to hate back then and loved to torture. If you haven't seen it yet, and you like Altman's other movies, this is a definite must-see.


Robert Altman's wry, tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic look at a pair of high school age nerds who are so far out of the daily loop of their peers they actually believe they are cool, hip, and much admired.

Although some of the comedic hi-jinks of the two boys seem mean spirited, by the end of the film they have had sufficient doses of reality so that the viewer feels these kids might not be the obnoxious little monsters they seemed to be throughout much of the film.

Bonding first with each other, then eventually with people outside their narrow world, O.C. & Stiggs manage to grow up a considerable amount during their self proclaimed summer of madness.

It amazes me that so many people dislike this film. At its core, it is a sweet, wonderful little comedy.


I am a huge fan of the original National Lampoon articles about O.C and Stiggs, and sadly, this movie captures little of the glory of those stories. Still, there are a few good moments, such as when King Sunny Ade and his African Beats are playing, and also when they show any exterior shot (the movie was filmed around Mesa and Phoenix, AZ). Also, I still remember the primal screams of "SCHWAAAAAAAAAB!!" when I think of this movie. The torture the Schwab family endures will most always bring a smile to my face. I think the biggest problems with this movie lie in the fact that the original O.C. and Stiggs articles were very 'out-there', some of the concepts were not P.C. for even then in the late 80s. One article related how they put a hayride together and made all the mentally challenged kids at one school ride in it, and how OC & S each got oral sex from one of the kids. This kinda storyline does not make a movie producer automatically start scrambling for the checkbook. So these non-PC (frankly, audience-scaring) ideas had to be 'toned down', to the point where the producers lost the core audience they were shooting for in the first place. Another area that needed work was the plot. It's pretty thin, even for this type of movie. The boys want King Sunny Ade to play a concert in town, so they do what they can to make it happen (Let's put on a bake sale!). That's it. As blah as this movie was, I still recommend it if only for the music. I can't wait until it finally comes out on DVD.


The quest for real Juju music is so admirable that I sat through this sad movie thinking repeatedly, "Gosh, this could have been tightened up here, paced up there..." It was frustrating to look at the possibilities.


ANyone who thinks RObert ALtman is a brilliant director should be tied down and forced to watch this piece of garbage! The original story of "O.C. and Stiggs" appeared in National Lampoon, and it was both uproariously funny AND outrageously offensive to both genders, ALL races, and ALL sexual preferences. Robert Altman turned a hilarious story into a tame, lame, wimpy, boring movie with no laughs and NO guts.