There has been a barrage of action films over the last two decades. Stallone's and Segal's stuff come to mind. All of these movies had plenty of action, violence and profanity. But the two things these movies were lacking were sustainable plot and character development.

In 1988, Die Hard came out. Bruce Willis, who before hand had only Blind Date and Moonlighting to his credit, was cast as the main character, John McClane. Richard Gere, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Burt Reynolds were all up for the role. The thing that separates McClane from all other action heroes before this movie is that McClane is an average character. He isn't a robot; he isn't some big muscley guy, or an expert and karate. He's vulnerable, bitter about his failing marriage, he's a funny guy. Schwarzenegger or Stallone would have never been able to achieve this. Gere and Reynolds have had too much confidence. Neither is particularly good at being sarcastic either. And the main thing that separates Bruce Willis from all the others is that Willis ad-libbed most of his funny one-liners. No one else could have brought the same charisma to John.

The opening scene has John McClane gripping his seat as his plane is landing. This opening scene shows you how McClane can be vulnerable and that he does have fears. The passenger next to him notices John's fear of flying and gives him this advice: "After you get where you're going, take off your shoes and socks and make fists with your toes." Once at the Christmas party, he learns that his wife, Holly, still uses her maiden name, and meets Ellis, the womanizing, cocaine snorting, co-worker of Holly. Ellis evidently has his eye on Holly. He's also pretty arrogant as he points out the Rolex that he and the company gave to Holly for all her hard work. John and Holly get away to a private washroom to talk by themselves, a talk that escalates into an argument over their marriage. In the middle of their argument, Holly is brought out to give a speech to the rest of the workers. John is left there to think about his stupidity of picking an argument with his wife the minute he arrives. Still tense from the flight, he takes off his shoes and socks and makes fists with his toes.

Meanwhile, a man named Hans Gruber and his group of "terrorists" pulls into the in-door parking lot of Nakatomi Plaza. After cutting off the phone lines and exits, they seize control of the Christmas party by gathering them all into one room. John McClane, armed with only his police issue Berretta, manages to escape out the emergency exit while the terrorists are gathering up the others. Shoeless and sickle's, he manages to make it to an empty floor where he's panicked, alone, and scared.

Hans Gruber is methodical, precise, and is patient. He's charming and intelligent and he doesn't seem like the type of person to kill another human in cold blood. He takes the head of the company, Takagi, up to the next floor where they work him for the access code to the main computer. When Takagi makes it apparent that he doesn't know the code, Hans doesn't hesitate. He shoots him through the head, point blank. Meanwhile, a shocked John is hiding behind a table, where he witnesses the killing of Takagi.

This is a summary of the first 30 minutes of the film, and I'm not going to give anything else away. Already, we've got a sense of what our two main characters are like. Unlike most action movies, the bad guy isn't a maniacal psycho who enjoys violence and kills people without an ounce of mercy. He's still an evil man who will kill anyone if it serves his purpose. But we understand Han's motivations. John McClane is a much chattier protagonist than most action heroes, and even talks to himself on numerous occasions before he starts talking Hans or the cops. It's easier to identify with him.

Even if you are not a fan of action movies, Die Hard is a movie that everyone should see at least once. It will definitely help you appreciate action movies much more, even if it doesn't convert you into a total fan of the genre.


After many years have passed I have to say that this movie kept me hanging as it did when I watched it was seems now like ages ago. The Sheriff of Nottingham was the main villain (I don't think he could ever play a good guy with his expressions but just as well because he's always perfect as a downright evil mastermind). This is basically what made Bruce Willis and rightly so, he did do some of his best acting in it. All the bad guys were pretty good, the only character that really got on my nerves was Ellis because he was just such a sleaze. I thought it was cool that the father from "Family Matters" (Reginald VelJohnson I think) made an appearance as a cop because he really is such a great actor yet you don't get to see him in too many pictures. This film is still exciting to watch and I definitely recommend it for this upcoming holiday season (as they play many Christmas songs throughout)! Yippy-kay-yay.

Final Innuendo:

Movies : I was an 80's child and even so I unfortunately missed this opportunity.

DVD Purchase : I could definitely see myself watching this once yearly.

Rental : A fantastic idea!


Die Hard

John McClane is in California to visit his wife, whom he is seperated from due to different dreams of careers and he hasn't been able to handle he succes in her new job. But it's christmas so he comes to see his family, while picking up his wife at her firm, a group of terrorist shows up and holds all guests as hostages, John McClane manages to escape and is now the only hope to save the hostages and alert the police.

Overall action movies are always very similar and predictable, and this movie is too predictable, perhaps that is the only big weakness of this movie, because who can deny there is something special with Die Hard. Die Hard is simply a very progressive, accelerated and perfectly paced action movie, not only does it tell a good story, and even comes with a few complexes, it also brings some of the best and most solid action ever to be seen.

John McTiernan has proven to be a solid action director over the years, after the breakthrough with Predator he made this classic action flick, that never seems to be getting old, even now. 17 years later, it still works as well as it did 17 years ago, brilliant.

This is just what I suppose we can call a perfect popcorn movie, the kind of movie where you lean back and just let the thrill ride begin, you know things will end happily, but still it entertains for the 2 hours it lasts, and it entertains at a very high level. Perhaps one of the weaknesses of the movie is the happy ending, I would have loved a darker ending, leaving something to think about, especially since there obviously is the problematic climax involved in the movie, there are some good side stories, especially the dramatic with John and Holly's marriage. Strangely that works out perfectly and we get to know everything about it, even though the movie actually doesn't spend much time explaining, it's just done so well and perfectly direct that we basically know everything about these two when the movie ends.

I am not sure if this was a final breakthrough for Bruce Willis, but he definetely shows in this movie what great actor he is, we see a lot of different sides of him, the tough guy, the soft guy, and even better, the funny guy. I hardly ever láugh in movies, and I hate unserious movies that are trying to hard to make you laugh, but the jokes in this movie are perfect, especially the one signed by Bruce Willis, I loved his attitude, perfect performance!

To sum it all up a bit, as we always do. This is a really great action classic, an unforgettable movie that never gets old, no matter how many times you watch it, this must be like the 5th time for me, and it's still highly entertaining, it has no slow moments and just moves out there at a perfect pace for 2 hours. The weak sides is perhaps that it's such a classic and traditional action movie that we know the end before the movie starts, sadly, an ending that would have left me breathless would have been better for me, but maybe other people think differently. I just like dark endings.

8/10


It's not the best gun movie. It's definitely not the best fighting movie. It doesn't have the best dialogue. It doesn't have the best cast. It doesn't have the best plot. What it has is possibly the best combination of the above in any action movie every made. It takes the pieces that it has to work with and forms a better whole. The dialogue is good. The cast is good (Rickman is the best of the bunch). The plot is good. Together, they are great. This film is the benchmark by which all American action movies should be judged. If an action film is better than Die Hard, then it deserves to be praised for that achievement alone.

I rate it a 8.5/10 in it's genre. I gave it a 9 here.


No doubt about it, to a lot of people, Bruce Willis will ALWAYS be John McClane, for better or worse.

In the film that made him a star, or at least got him out of TV work, Bruce Willis is New York native cop John McClane, come down to LA to see his estranged wife and family for the Christmas holiday. Then Hans (Alan Rickman, in one of his best evil performances) and a group of thieves posing as terrorists who look European male models and an obnoxious black computer hacker show up, take over the building and try to rob the place. Only McClane can stop them, and his only real support comes from Sgt. Al Powell (played by the dad from TV's "Family Matters"). Calamity, chaos and mayhem ensue as McClane and the foreign thugs tear the building apart trying to kill each other in the ultimate battle of all American cowboy hero and sophisticated Eurotrash and the idiot cops and FBI gets trip over themselves to help out.

Based on the novel by Roderick Thorpe. Bonnie Bedelia is Bruce's wife, and the late Alexander Godunov is Karl, who's vendetta with Bruce turns personal. Bonnie does well as the sympathetic wife with a bad haircut and Godunov, in a role very different from his debut part as an Amish farmer in "Witness", is surprisingly menacing in spite of his pretty boy looks. Of course, it helps that his career as a ballet dancer gave him more dexterity than the usual hulking henchman. His knock-down-drag-out brawl with Willis is one of the best.

Alan Rickman commented that he didn't view Hans as "the villain", but more as a guy who "has made certain choices in life, wants certain things in life and goes after them." All the same, Alan is the perfect villain for Bruce's wise cracking McClane, who is neither weak nor super human. Bruce worked very hard on this film and allegedly did a lot of his own stunts and really brought a lot of life and warmth to a character who could very easily have been just another grim loner. It's a shame that he's had to spend the majority of his career trying to get away from this character (kind of like Sean Connery trying to live down his glory days as James Bond). And to think that Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Burt Reynolds and Richard Gere all turned this part down (probably better that they did).

Sadly, the appeal of the McClane character was lost in #3 "Die Hard: With A Vengeance", where McClane HAD become a grim, burned out, wasted loner.

A big part of the power of "Die Hard" is that there are no easy escapes, very few places to run and very little "cheating" as director John McTiernan put it. And it's true that very few moments require you to suspend logical disbelief, although we do have to question if it's possible to successfully pull of the stunt where Bruce jumps off the building with a hose wrapped around him.

So grab the popcorn and get ready for the madness of "Die Hard"! This is actually one of the few action films my family and I enjoy watching together. This was actually filmed at the 20th Century Fox Plaza.


Die Hard - what a movie. What a legend. The ultimate pointless, shallow, and unnaturally contrived movie makes for one hell of a viewing experience.

It's non-stop action, non-stop cliches, non-stop formulaic plots and villainous men with German accents, you've got to love it. Bruce Willis is at highest form in a role which needs nothing but highly toned abs and occasional smart alec NYC one-liners. Alan Rickman is the really loveable part of this film. A real-life German terrorist couldn't do better playing this role.

You can probably tell I've just finished watching it, the adrenaline is still pumping through my veins, my wry smile still plastered across my face. John McTiernan sure packs a punch, I can tell you that. The best thing about this film is that it's just a movie. It doesn't try to be anything but a formulaic, by-the-numbers, big budget action hit and so it works spectacularly for what it's trying to achieve. Provided you don't expect a masterpiece of filmmaking, what you'll receive is a masterpiece nonetheless.

There's no need to analyse this film much further, it's a thrill ride, utterly shallow and hopelessly artificial. You've gotta love it. **** / *****


this is an action movie that works. i am not a fan of most action movies. you have to believe that the hero is a real person and that he is in real danger... the minute you know a character is getting out okay, the minute the franchise dulls. bruce willis was so perfectly ordinary and so perfectly tough, that this role really worked. only mel gibson really had that quality in the first Lethal Weapon. and not everyone could pull it off (certainly not Sylvester or Arnold). i genuinely believed that john mclane was thinking of these things as he went along. even the ridiculous cliches were pulled off nicely. the wife wasn't a victim, but a clear head. i think the second Die Hard was strong also, but when the wife's character disappeared, a lot of the heart was lost. he was no longer a father and husband like in the first one. he no longer seemed like someone who really wanted to live. but in this one, there's a real sense of pain (as in the bloody feet) and urgency (his wife and kids). 7/10. probably not deserving of the top 250 movies of all time, but great nonetheless.


My Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

One word I would use to describe Die Hard is energetic. Once this movie gets started it doesnt slow down. The action scenes arent overblown like some in the movies today. The movie is set at a perfect pace.

Although the movie is expertly paced, it is well made in other areas. The movie is well written, both storywise and dialogue. It has some very good one-liners.

Another area that is worth mentioning in Die Hard is the acting. Bruce Willis may not be the Best Actor, but he is very good as John McClane. Alan Rickman is fantastic as the villain, possibly the best or at least one of the best villains in an action movie. The rest of the cast gives solid performances.

Die Hard may just be some action movie, but it is one of the best.

My Rating: ***1/2 out of


This is the ultimate action flick. Bruce Willis shines as the hero John McClane, and Alan Rickman is excellent as the terrorist leader Hans Gruber. Reginald VelJohnson (TV's Carl Winslow) is great as McClane's police contact on the ground. The story is compelling, and the action is incredible. There are plenty of gunshots, explosions, and an amazing hand-to-hand fight between Bruce and Alexander Godunov. John McTiernan outdid himself as an action director with this movie.

Special mention goes to Jan de Bont for his wonderful cinematography. You can say what you want about his directorial efforts, but the man is a top-notch photographer.


Bruce Willis stars as John McClane a NYC cop who finds himself the only one who can stop a terrorist Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) who has taken over an office building and is holding thousands of people hostage in this exciting and jaw dropping actionflick which isn't only a movie but a pulse pounding experience. Die Hard is a genre classic best watched on DVD with excellent sound effects to test your speakers.


This is the movie that has been cloned more times than sheep and hamsters combined. Bruce Willis shines and stars in this high tech action thriller. Everyone knows what the movie is about. Everyone knows how the movie will end. That doesn't mean that it isn't GREAT. It is the best Bruce Willis movie to date, in my opinion. Die Hard with a Vengeance was almost as good as this was. Go see the trilogy today. 3 3/4th *'s out of 4 *'s.


(CONTAINS SPOILERS) The action classic DIE HARD gives us what we expect.

Bruce Willis plays the character as John McClane, a tired, confused, irritated but very deadly cop who gladly kills some men to save his wife whose being helt hostage.

STORY: Christmas in town! NYPD cop John McClane has come all the way to Los Angeles just to make things up with his wife this Christmas. Holly (wife) is working in Nakatomi Plaza and there is being held a Christmas party and under that, 12 uninvited guests appears. Twelve German terrorists high-jacks the skyscraper and declares war against everything and everyone. They've expected anything...except John McClane there you see, that is running in the fire stairs with his serving gun and he's p***ed off!

"Come to the coast, get together have a few laughs!" Bruce Willis' performance as the cop couldn't have been done better so I'm not complaining about him, no - but the show gets stealed by the villain, as too often - Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber. The movie ir brilliant in the most ways and entertains you perfect! In the same time being a funny movie it's violent, exciting and tough as nothing else! We're waiting for the fourth Die Hard movie to come, but that I think is going to be a big mistake! Without doubt the best movie in the trilogy...great and simply tough and funny!


The start of probably the greatest action triolgy alongside Indiana Jones has to rate highly. A movie that is action packed, laced with great one liners and see's the good guys kicking ass over terrorist before it was popular. Its not for everyone, not one movie is, but if you love action movies, make sure you've seen this one.


What can you say about Die Hard that hasn't been said a million times before? How about 'its crap'? Well, the reason why that hasn't been repeated ad nauseum is because it blatantly isn't true.

Die Hard is one of those rare genre defining films. The first time I saw it I was 9 and was totally blown away. I have probably watched it once a year since then and I don't think its lost any impact.

You know the drill by now. John McLane is out numbered (but never outgunned) by a group of terrorists in a high tech building. Cue much death and destruction before happy ending. It sounds so simple. Well, actually, it is. Die Hard perfected the formula of the action film, attempted by so many 80's films. Its actually a testament to Die Hard that they 'don't make em like they used to'.


I can't believe this isn't in the top 50 thrillers of all time. Die Hard is a big budget action movie, with sophistication. Alan Rickman, who plays the film's German uber-baddie, really controls the part and brings in some blunt wit. Die Hard is the best and probably most violent of the trilogy. Endlessly entertaining and effortlessly rewatchable, Die Hard is a classic. 8.2 out of 10.


This film cannot be beaten in terms of action. Bruce Willis will always be remembered for starring in this. And rightly so, it is a non-stop thrill ride from about 20 min. in until the finish. Having said that, the first 20 min. are not boring, as time is needed to build up the characters. Which is where the other half of this film comes in. The brains.

Sure you can have guys leaping from skyscrapers or blowing up buildings, but there has to be a reason for it to happen. Also, unlike most action films, the 'bad guy' is the protaginist, and McClane, the 'good guy' is the antaginist.

Anyway, I could've written more, but that's the point I wanted to make, action films need more than just action.


Frances-Anne Solomon has done a fantastic job of combining a well-written script and the perfect team of actors to bring A Winter Tale to fruition on the big screen. This movie is a brutally honest and personal view of the social ills that affect young black males at risk in Toronto. Rather than just presenting a violent shoot 'em-up type of movie, Solomon shows us the lives of men from a community who are proactive in their attempt to deal with the emotional and psychological effects of poverty, and urban violence. These are elements that are hardly highlighted in depth in news stories we hear and see locally.

What makes this movie come alive is not just the stories told through a group of men seeking answers, but it's also the passion and emotion evoked by Miss G (played by the phenomenal Leonie Forbes). The history of conflict between her son Ian and herself is emotionally riveting, as is the performance of Canadian actor Peter Williams who plays the role of the social worker, Gene Wright, who initiates the support group for black males.

A Winter Tale is a special film told from a unique angle. It's a poignant story that is not exclusive to Black Canadians, but to anyone concerned about the future of their community and the children growing up under similar conditions.


'A Winter Tale' reminded me of a snow globe. Not only because it happens in winter (hence snow) and not only because the world of this small black Toronto community gets shaken (as snow globes do) by the accidental shooting death of a young child ... but also because of the closeness and intimacy of everything. The feeling was of being invited into a small space (like a snow globe) to meet these characters, experienced with an emotional and visual closeness (e.g. many close up shots of their eyes, faces, mouths) which pressed them and their lives against me as a viewer. How could we all fit into this small globe without becoming more intimately involved (visually and emotionally) or without feeling some kind of intensity?

Gene, one of the main characters (a social worker), forms a male support group, which addresses the need for 'dialogue' among the men of the community. In contrast, there are points in the film where there is no dialogue ... where what is not said speaks as loudly as (louder than?) what is or could be. This absence (of dialogue) stood out for me for two scenes in particular: (i) after the shooting of the boy, one of the men returns to the eatery to tell the grandfather that his grandson is dead. This is done so wordlessly and powerfully that in the moment I was aware of the power of silence (absence of words). Anything voiced at that point would have ruined it. (ii) Gene (social worker) crying in bed after the shooting of the boy, his wife's long, white arm reaching out to touch his turned back. He eventually turns to her, still crying, and there is an overhead shot of their naked interracial bodies intertwined. Sensual. Maternal. Come to think of it, the men in the film often come across as boys, particularly when in the presence of the women in their lives (whether wife, girlfriend or mother). They seemed to be reflections of that little boy who got shot: just as vulnerable - both emotionally and in the sense of being potential victims of gun violence themselves.

I enjoyed the film's textures, camera work and editing. At times I found myself thinking that I could have been looking at a painting - particularly in the scenes that showed the city of Toronto. I saw it in a blurred, abstract, almost surreal way - in contrast with the realness of the life of the main characters. The close up red of a street car passing was like a paintbrush with red paint on it, streaking across the screen. The silhouetted CN tower against a golden watercolour blur of sky. A quick, haunting glimpse of a black brush-stroked female figure standing alone on a snowy sidewalk. Blurry memories of childhood. At points the editing, angles and distance of the shots worked together to make me feel as though I was seeing this urban painting through the window of a passing train: quick snippets. Not much of the city had to be shown to depict it. Like a few simple Japanese brush strokes creating the whole picture.

The soundtrack was there throughout, supporting and driving, but never standing above. The only point where I consciously became aware of it and found myself listening to what the music was 'made up' of was a looped instrumental part just before the little boy gets shot. I remember listening to it and being aware of the silence and spacing between the notes enhancing the tension of 'something about to happen'.


Canadians are thirsty for stories that reflect and motivate us. Director Frances-Anne Solomon's recent offering A Winter Tale is just that kind of story... and more. Solomon and her cast deliver extraordinarily credible, emotionally raw and sincere performances that depict the vulnerability, self-preservation, and salvation of Toronto residents in the wake of gun violence.

Set in Toronto's Parkdale community, the story opens with a social worker named Gene (played by Peter Williams) and his attempts to "get the black men in his community to talk", after an innocent 12-year old takes a fatal bullet meant for a drug dealer. The backdrop for much of the film is at the Caribbean Takeaway Restaurant run by Miss G (played by Leonie Forbes) where the men hang out drinking beers, speaking patois and playing cards and pool.

The cast of A Winter Tale was "encouraged to bring a little piece of themselves" to every scene. This included their varied Caribbean and African backgrounds. Using an often overlooked technique, Solomon and her cousin, Michele Lonsdale-Smith (who directed the theater version of the movie) held improvisation workshops, where the actors could channel their characters freely. As a result, much of the cast is credited with helping to write the script. The cast also lived in Parkdale during the filming.

On screen the group dynamics are riveting. The film is never stereotypical and never preachy. More importantly it's gripping and real, at times even nostalgic. We know these characters, not just on screen, but in our daily lives too.

Each scene is ultimately a window into the tragedies, joys, and struggle with the negative elements in our society. The climax and resolution of the film leave you spent, unsure of what to feel next other than anxious, a little "mad", and exposed at the same time. Of the film, Solomon said she wanted to "pack an emotional punch". It does - violence is not a spectator sport, and nowhere in this film could you simply watch, - you felt the call to action and even discussion. No doubt before long, this film will be screening in theaters across Canada.

Otherwise, you're missing out on one of the best truly Canadian films this year.


The Reel World Film Festival in April opened with a gala performance of the made in Canada film A Winter Tale. It won the award for best Canadian feature at the festival which included films from a number of countries.

It's the work of British-born, Trinidad raised Frances-Anne Solomon whose experience embraces award winning feature films and television productions for the BBC.

Leonie Forbes, Jamaica's "first lady of film" won the festival's award of excellence for her telling performance as Miss G, the proprietor of a small restaurant in Toronto's Parkdale district, where the entire tale is set during bleak winter time.

After a ten-year-old boy is shot by a stray bullet a social worker tries to form a black men's support group seeking a witness to the crime. But it's an uphill struggle against fear of retribution from neighborhood, drug dealing gangs is portrayed. A Winter Tale offers a searching perspective on the timely issues of gun violence, set against the backdrop of a Caribbean community's hopes and tribulations. The film, although fictional is directed and filmed with a documentary-like sense of realism. It reminds one how shallow are the "reality" TV shows when art can imitate life in such a telling fashion.

At present, I can't tell you where this moving film might be shown theatrically, but please watch out for A Winter Tale.


My response to this movie was it was great. The reason why I say this is because I can relate to these things that happened in the movie from my own experience growing up in a troubled neighborhood. I myself grew up in TCHC neighborhood so I see these things taking place on a regular basis, people getting shot, drugs being sold, police come in and harassing innocent people and friends getting killed over nonsense.

Therefore we need more community support and more community organizations to help out in these troubled neighborhoods, so that our young men and women can have a future and move forward in life to accomplish their goals and dreams.

The reason why I thought the movie was great was because it showed the struggle that we face on a daily basis, growing up and living in a troubled neighborhood. It also had a community leader that was trying to make a difference by having community group meetings once or twice a week, having people come out and participate in making a change in the community.


I have to say, I loved this movie (thank you Peter for bringing it with you) The story was very moving (well done Frances Anne) with a few fun moments and tragedy. However, the underlying story is very fresh today, whether in Canada, USA, UK, and all over the world. Its an issue that really needs to be noted, and for people to start realising. We are a multicultural society now, we have to learn to live and respect one another. This movie would be very good shown in schools, to show kids the gritty side of life, not the glamorised side like a Hollywood movie.

I have to say, after watching A Winter Tale, I'm considering a career change. I'm seriously considering re-training and doing something more meaningful with my life, to help kids/youths/supporting adults. I've been thinking about it for a while, and with seeing A Winter Tale, I'm very seriously contemplating this move. Sorry, back to the movie: Would I watch the movie again? Yes Would I buy the movie? Yes! Well done everyone on the movie!!


Neither chained by realism nor burdened by it, director Frances-Anne Solomon thoughtfully explores the issue of Black-on-Black crime within the Black community, which certainly transcends national boundaries. Nevertheless, in "A Winter Tale"the opening night presentation for this year's African Diaspora Film Festival in New York CitySolomon remains specific to Black Canadian affairs. Her consistent use of intimate scenes reminds the audience that such a universal theme is grounded in a specific location that is worthy of close-up attention.

The film opens with the death of a young boy as a result of stray gunfire near a drug location. Instead of allowing female characters to pronounce the pain and mournfulness of the moment, Solomon captures the devastated sounds and piercing silence of men's pain, tears and struggles. Solomon does not ignore facial dialogue. In fact, she makes good use of visual resources at the most telling moments. Her thoughtful portrayal of a crime that might only merit a blurb in newspapers is the reason for viewing the film.

Following the death, a young community-builder, Gene Wright, starts a local support group exclusively for men. Wright thinks that this unfortunate homicide will galvanize men across generations to address problems of the community. The first meeting, however, fails expectations. It is only within a local eatery, Miss G's Caribbean Take Away, that the men start to come together. It is in this more intimate setting that the film shows how crimes within the community are intertwined and have lasting effects within the home despite the bantering and play that goes on in the eatery. Amidst the urgent need to address the recent killing, each key male character has difficult issues of home that do not have comforting or identifiable resolutions.

In a question-and-answer session following the premiere screening, some audience members observed that the instructive potential of the film might be lost due to some explicit content. In response, the director upheld the current format of the film in order to show how these explicit images are not holistically demanding. Likewise, I think that although driven by true-to-life narratives, the edgy exactitude of Solomon's cinematography indicates the artist's innovative imagination.

In "A Winter Tale," Solomon along with her talented cast deliver a complex yet common story that respects the audience's interpretative freedom by preserving the dynamic lives of each character. (Courtesy of SeeingBlack.com)


A Few weeks ago I was at the 15th Annual African Diaspora Film festival here in New York and by chance I happen to attend the screening for this film called A Winter Tale.

The film took place in Toronto, in a neighborhood called Parkdale.

Now I'm not at all familiar with Toronto or the neighborhoods, or the city dynamics etc. but I loved this movie so much. The acting was really good, well written. The way certain details came through the exposition was handled really well.

Its a story thats mainly centered around the events that take place after a young boy is shot in the head, and the effort of one community member to create a support group against the deaths of young Black males in the city.

I don't want to give up what happened, but i'm sure some of you have heard, or probably seen the film. (I think it was released in Canada in early 2006?)

I really enjoyed how the film focused in on the Black community in Toronto. I caught a little deja vu while watching the film (as a kid my father owned similar west Indian type of restaurant in the bronx). I'm a young Black male and I come from an African American/Caribbean Background, and I knew of certain things issues going on up there but I'm not too informed. (What I know of city issues in Toronto come from my niece and nephew that live up there)

watching the move was refreshing because it really is a remarkable work of art, but at the same time I was frustrated because, I said to myself damn why is it they never try to show you Canada from this perspective

I would definitely recommend this movie here are some links about flick: ledaserenesnewz1.blogspot.com, awintertale.ca

Best thing about it was the Director and two of the actors were in the audience. The director said that most of the script was based off of improv, that right there was remarkable.


A Winter Tale is a beautifully shot feature that highlights men's communication skills regarding gun violence.

Shot on location in Toronto's inner city neighbourhood of Parkdale, this crucially relevant film is all too timely.

We feel the characters viscerally, as if the film were a documentary, but its narrative flow and close camera work draws the audience in to experience the action as if we were part of the circle, face to face with real people with whom we can identify.

Scene by scene, Parkdale comes to life in full spectrum; character is revealed through a grim, suspenseful inevitability.

A Winter Tale does not provide answers to Toronto's gun violence per se, but it does expose the difficulties and the necessity in ensuring that a dialogue about these issues gets started. Now.

Penn Kemp, pennkemp.ca


It's such a relief to see a film that's both set in Toronto and features Toronto as one of its principal stars. This hasn't really happened since 1970 when Don Shebib's landmark Canadian film "Going Down the Road" filled us with an extraordinary sense of pride in our Canadian culture. That's the first good thing about "A Winter Tale."

The next good thing about this film is that Telefilm Canada, our federal cultural agency whose business is the development and promotion of the Canadian film industry, had the good sense to provide funding support to this small indie production. Telefilm decision makers could not have known, more than three years ago when the film was struggling to overcome all the barriers that make it so hard for independent Canadian films to see the light of day, that this little film would have the phenomenal success it has achieved  across Canada and in Great Britain, Europe, the United States and the Caribbean.

The third good thing about "A Winter Tale" is the film itself. The fact that it looks, with empathy and thoughtfulness, at the violence and pain that has invaded culturally diverse neighborhoods in cities all over the world. And that it does so without the noisy, gory "shoot 'em up" theatrics of Hollywood's brightest and best. The fact that it explores (as much as any 100 minute film can) the inner lives of the men and women who are trapped within their day to day sorrows and joys. No matter what they do, they remain isolated by barriers of racism and poverty from the benefits and rewards that Western societies continue to promise their ever-hopeful immigrants. It is because of these features that audiences in countries all over the world believe that this little Canadian film, set in a downtown Toronto community, speaks directly to them and to their concerns and interests.

The last, but by no means the least, good thing about this film is director Frances-Anne Solomon's idea to use it as a tool for community engagement. At as many screenings as possible, Solomon and some of her cast have invited the audience to stay around and "Talk It Out". Audiences, young and old, of every color, class, caste and creed, in Canada and elsewhere, have taken up this invitation eagerly and added their own real life stories to the poignancy of the movie experience. Thus," A Winter Tale" has fulfilled much more, I am sure, that anybody ever expected.

At one of the first screenings that I attended about a year ago, Solomon thanked Diane Boehm for CHUM TV's providing the original funding to get this project going nearly eight years ago. It always gives me hope to know that there are still Canadian executives who, like Diane Boehm, are prepared to take a chance on Canadian talent that is relatively unknown in our so-called "mainstream", simply because it is Canadian.


This is a gripping account of the senseless loss of an 8 year old child on Toronto's inner-city slums peopled in a big chunk by Caribbean immigrants.

One man, Gene, played by Stargate's Peter Williams - decides to host a community therapy session for the black males of his community. It seems to be great resistance at first, but rather than make the men come to him - he went to them at their favorite hangout, a Caribbean takeaway restaurant.

This same eatery is run by the grandparents of the little boy who was caught in the crossfire of a drug deal gone bad, the janitor is a limping Jamaican called Clip, who must use medication to stay sane. As you watch the whole film, you realise all of the characters are not just pure good and evil - Villains have redeeming aspects and heroes or heroines have flaws.

A young male caught between right and wrong is DX or Dexter, whose mother used to be the girlfriend of Gene - what is not stated but is always floating is not that DX is Gene's son, but that Gene could have been DX's dad, and as such, he feels responsible for the youth. DX himself is a young father, caught in the lies and connivings of young drug-lord Lloyd, who helps "to run" the Caribbean eatery.

The phantom-parenting of Dexter/DX and the fact he still cares for DX's mother is a conundrum in the view that Gene is married to a white woman (Who does not wash her hands after using the bathroom, nasty! All the Caribbean in the audience gasped at the omission of soap) and they have two daughters...

Despite the rage of Gene's wife at the community therapy, it eventually uncovers what really happened with the death of little Andrew, the 8 year old boy and it leads to a sad yet not totally unexpected conclusion.

Director of "A Winter Tale", Frances Anne Solomon, is English-born of Trinidad parents, she took a whole decade to get this film off the ground! Financing came mainly from Telefilm Canada and Chum TV, rather than direct scripting she would create situations where the actors would develop the dialogue - this was reinforced with constant research of gang violence in T-Dot as Toronto is known.

She called it a low-budget film - 800-thousand Canadian, so with little money she took her time to develop the plot and engineer the dialogue.

The final scene where Lloyd gets his just desserts is apparently based on a true story where a gang member had a dispute with another leader got on a bike, dealt with it and then pedalled off to a funeral to be a pall bearer! This picture was a great ensemble piece - some may say there are too many loose ends in the film, but for me it seemed just the same way that real life is! A gripping and eye-opening introduction to another side of Canada...


'A Wintery Tale' indeed, is intense and melancholy with everlasting tight shots that never puts the viewer at ease. Instead, it rises to pure confusion and then into a visual beauty... The power of this small film is that the viewer is thrown into the drama and the story early and the metaphor weaved throughout, which is Toronto, Canada, is disturbing to say the least. It's 'perfect multicultural mosaic' has gone sour...

Set in the Caribbean community in this rich North American city, gun violence and crime are rampant. Black against Black, a child is killed one cold night by a stray bullet from a drug deal shootout. A self-appointed sports teacher and social worker named Gene, decides enough is enough! He gathers a group of his fellow male colleagues and forces them to listen to each other and to look at who and what they have become.

In those beautiful tight shots, strong well developed characters, (much like Fellinis 'circus of alienated souls'), flush through a long dark tunnel of edgy personal stories until there's light. But at the end, the light is still gray and smoking... with a: "look who's dunnit again!" As a people, that is, diaspora Africans to the New World, the film questions, who are we? And where exactly are we going? It's clear that despite some of our unrealized dreams and hopes, we do have power; we live in the houses of power, so we must continue to demand a space and a room...

I'm still on edge. A MUST see film!! Ten (10) thumbs up!!


I'm sure it has been said a million times but this was one of the most powerful depictions I've ever watched on this kind of topic.

At a technical level the film workedjust the right touch of techniques, not overboard. I love the way the director connected the story elements rather than use the same old flashback technique some films use.

The story moved at a tight pace, but not so fast you can't absorb its impact.

I felt like someone grabbed my insides and said "Don't move, we are going for the ride of your life!" There is no comparison between this film and a movie like How She Move. I really hope it becomes one of the landmark pieces on this issue.

Kudos! Maureen


I really loved this film. I am still thinking about it! I also live in Parkdale and this place and its people are close to my heart. I also found the film to be really funny and I feel that I got to know each of the characters. It was really human and sensory. I am also interested in the process of making the film and the community's role, and would like to find out more info on that.

The film also was relevant to me because I am currently working on a report to the Premier of Ontario on the Roots of Youth Violence with Mr. Alvin Curling and the Chief Justice Roy McMurty (please see www.rootsofyouthviolence.on.ca). We have been talking with youth and many others about their experiences with violence. I will strongly recommend that my colleagues (and friends and family) see this movie, as I think it is important for them to get a better understanding of some youth's lived experiences and their community's realities here in our city.

I thought having the community discussion after the film was really important too because the film leaves you with a lot of hard questions and you want to talk about it.

Anyway, thank you for this film. It was wonderfully done and acted. I am going to see it again. I liked the way it was shot and the scenes, which I can appreciate more the second time around.

Peace, Lu-Anne Brezina


I discovered this show only months ago, and was so mad that it had been on so long without my knowledge. I am not interested in becoming an actor or director, but I am a movie lover to the core and am always interested in what actors have to say. These interviews are wonderful because they are not the average "hollywood" interview. It's not about who the actor is sleeping with, and how hard they've been partying. The interview explores the reasons behind the career choices, and experiences of filming. It is much more real, and deep, and interesting then any others. You really feel like you are part of the audience, and you get to see a different side to some very incredible actors and learn something new. I love it!


this is the only show ( at least i watched until now ) that not only helps to know how our favorite stars are... but also helps to develop the craft for professionals ( being and wanted to be ) and know the difficulty of the craft for non-professionals, you may ask why general public should know how difficult the craft is and that is because they are the people who comments ( usually bad ) on them.

i really admire James Lipton a lot , i never admired a interviewer before. what i really like him about, is the way he presents himself dominating even in front of legends. i really show my gratitude for that kind of admiring attitude.

i recommend " 100th guest special " show ( if u have not seen )bec it is the only show where u can clearly understand how actors are.., i mean he complete mixture of sentiments, humor, professionalism, attitude, he way they were, etc.., and for general audience, it is Aone ENTERTAINMENT, especially when they show JULIA ROBERTS in between smiling, VOW... the amount i like is just doubled like hell, vow, hats off to Julia Roberts, well not only that, u will be finding your own favorite stars doing stuffs like that especially KEVIN SPACEY, STEVEN SPIELBERG, ROBIN WILLIAMS, JERRY LEWIS, man the list goes on...

great TV show - inside the actors studio

inside the actors studio's best - 100 guest special

continue enjoying the show

see u guys...


I'm sorry but Rosie O'Donnell talking about her mother's death and Barbara Walters (who has never really acted) on the actors studio. I have suggestions as to who should be on the Actors Studio in the future. What about your former wife, Nina Foch? What about the following? Kim Novak (retired and very much alive in Oregon. I bet she can teach acting), Dame Elizabeth Taylor, Barbara Windsor, Susan Lucci, Erika Slezak (she has 6 daytime Emmys), Jeanne Cooper, Emma Thompson, Susan Flannery, Helen Wagner (she celebrates 50 years playing one role on AS the World Turns), don't forget your soap roots, John Lipton. You spent 10 years on daytime with some of the finest around. You could have some longtime actors and actresses on your show. I bet they have better stories and can teach about acting. I look forward to your Liza Minnelli interview which will be a deservedly 2 hours long. Don't forget the Redgraves as well, Lynn, Vanessa, and Corin? What about Broadway stars like Cherry Jones, Zoe Caldwell, Angela Lansbury, John Lithgow, Oprah Winfrey, etc. There are plenty of wonderful actors and actresses out there waiting to be interviewed for your show. Kim Novak is a good example of somebody. She is a golden girl from the golden days of Hollywood. She would be worth watching as well. Come on, Lipton, you can do better than Rosie and Babs.


I have known actors and I dislike them for so many reasons. When done well, there's no denying acting IS a skill. But too many people think they should be actors, mainly because they see it as a lifestyle and a way to be the center of attention, not a job - laziness & privilege are what appeal to them. Most actors cannot stop acting, and they are constantly attempting to shine attention on themselves. This plays out on the show as actors "method-act" their answers.

The actors I've known are needy, awful, empty-headed people. These qualities are enervating. This is the TV show that confirms the truth of every unflattering cliché about actors AND liberals and makes everyone else do a slow-boil. When they answer Lipton's limp questions, actors reveal the self-impressed minutia & trivial crap that their minds are pre-occupied with; the things that have stunted their growth.

There are no more unkind words to waste on the hideously self-impressed and fawning sycophant James Lipton. The dynamic he provides is revolting.

The coda of each episode is a grotesque display of touchy-retchy posturing and self-disclosure: "Hello my name is Sierra, I'm the product of my parents most delirious self-indulgent baby-boomer dreams. I'm a 2nd year acting student, and I haven't thought deeply about anything but myself for over a decade...." (Although this sounds like a conservative rant, I'm a liberal)


So what if some say this was "Awful"! The supporting cast under Miss Kristal is actually very good. Both the French and the Germans are believable. (What is it with lesbian German "fraulein doktors"?) :-) While the WWI battle scenes were rather poor for their lack of hundreds of extras, the details of what WAS shown is very commendable! Miss Kristal's best scene is where she stands at the edge of a trench and her coat drops to reveal for the first time her nurse's uniform (her costume for her spy duties). It doesn't sound dramatic, but the shot IS! The rest of the movie is just GORGEOUS with the European locations, set decoration and authentic props (including a steam locomotive!). It is a beautifully shot movie! You think you are back in 1916! If you enjoyed the location photography in THE BLUE MAX, you will also like MATA HARI! It may not be CITIZEN KANE but very watchable... many times, even!


US version of Mata Hari is cut omitting all of the sex scenes.International version is much more longer.DVD version released by MGM features the cut end edited version.Original version contain much more sex and nudity.I don't recommend that version.It is a soft core movie and buying the censored version of this silly film will be funny. I am doubtful that Lady Chatterley is also cut or not.I am not sure about it but i is also "R" rated.And it may also be cut.Fifth Musketeer is also cut omitting all of the nudity.For example uncut version contains much more nudity from Sylvia Kristel and Ursula Andress.


This is a soft-porn version of the life of the real Mata Hari, supposed spy for the Germans, executed by the French in 1917. This movie tries to sanctify MH, but only makes her ridiculous. Her real life and fate was far more interesting than this movie.


This is a soft-core biography about notorious dancer with smouldering allure who had relationships with high-ranking military officers, politicians,millionaires and others in influential positions in many countries. The film starts in Java 1909, where we see to Mata Hari dancing an exotic temple dance. 1914 Paris , two captains (Christopher Cazenove, Oliver Tobias) know to Margheritte Zella. Later Mata Hari travels in train where knows a handsome traveller (Derek De Lint) but he's suddenly murdered. Then she's accused from killing but is freed by the German captain(Cazenove). Paris 1915, Folies Bergere where Mata Hari is playing a spectacle impersonating the Goddess Kali with several hands. There encounters again the French captain(Tobias), who frames her as informer and asks her participate as Allied spy . In Madrid contacts with a watchmaker and is blackmailed by two German spies(Gaye Brown,Gottfried John). Now she must to go behind the enemy lines and rescue the German captain, dressing as nurse.Posteriorly in Paris 1916, is proceeded an intrigue about an liquid explosive which the baddies want to explode into a cathedral.

This is an erotic and disastrous rendition about the life of famous spy Mata Hari.The picture is full of sexual relations, nudism and some of action and drama. Lousy performance by Sylvia Kristel, Emmanuel, at one of the worst acting of the cinema history. Produced in middling budget by Menahen Golan and Yoran Globus, Cannon, usual producers lots of films during the 70s and 80s. The movie is badly directed by Curtis Harrington.

Although the story is inspired on real events, it's mostly a historical fiction , the actual deeds are the following: His true name was Margaretha Zella(1876-1917), a Frisian-Dutch known dancer and double agent during WWI. She was a successful courtesan , though was known more for her eroticism and sensuality rather for her stunning classic beauty. At 18, she answered an announce in newspapers about a man looking for spouse. She married Netherland Colonial Official and they moved to Indonesia , at island of Java. But the marriage was a disappointment and the couple early separated in 1903. Meanwhile she practices Indonesian traditions, uniting a local dance company learning the exotics jigs. Later she revealed her artistic name, Mata Hari, for 'eye the day' of the sun. She moving back to Europe , winning fame and fortune as exotic dancer. She was one of the leaders of the contemporary dancers, such as Ruth Dennis and Isadora Duncan that looked to Asian world for inspiration. During WWI, as neutral origin citizen was able to cross national borders freely , she travelled among Netherland, France, Germania, Spain but her several movements inevitably attracted attention. In early 1917 the German staff in Madrid transmitted messages to Berlin referring the activities of a German spy , code named H-21. French Intelligence intercepted it and identified as Mata Hari. Then she was detained and put on trial, framed of spying for Germany and condemned death warrant , accused to cause deceasing of at least 50.000 allied soldiers. She was founded guilty and executed by firing squad at the age of 41.

Another better rendering based on famed courtesan/spy are: a silent version with Magda Sonja , classic adaptation by George Fitzmaurice with Greta Garbo and Ramon Novarro and Mata Hari, agent H 21(1964) by Jean Louis Richard with Jeanne Moreau and Jean Louis Trintignant.


This is a ridiculous biopic about the real, incredibly beautiful belly dancer, master spy, Javanese princess etc. Mata Hari, a supposed spy for the Germans, executed by the French in 1917. The movie tries to redeem her, but only makes her pathetic. She would definitely have been all but forgotten today, had she not been shot for espionage. If she was indeed guilty, and in that case for what, is a complex issue, considerably more so than the film in question. Margaretha Geertruida Zelle was born in 1876 in Leeuwarden, Holland, by Dutch parents. Under the artist name of Mata Hari she made a comet career as an "exotic dancer" in lavish settings with a less than genuine Indian/oriental touch. She was said to be the daughter of a Brahman priest; or something similar -- all make-believe promotional bullshit, made possible by her dark eyes, hair and complexion (though she wouldn't have fooled nearly as many in Jakarta or Bombay as in Paris, of course). She did, however, have a connection to Java (then part of the Dutch empire), having lived there 1897-1902. What about her great looks and great dancing? When Greta Garbo did her part (in the all but fictional movie which probably have contributed more than anything else to the general image of Mata Hari) she was 26 years old and looked like - well - like Garbo. Sylvia Kristel was 33 in the trash in question. The gift of Margaretha Zelle never was great looks as much as charisma and sex appeal. At her execution in 1917 she was 41, and had her dancing well behind. Most of the dancing took place in 1905-06, then the assignments gradually became fewer and worse paid, until 1915. She now lived on her lovers. Her living standards varied considerably despite her international fame; sometimes she spent months at the best hôtels of Paris, sometimes she survived on quite limited means - sometimes simultaneously. Downright prostitution did occur, though she never accepted any customers whatsoever. (Her preference for men in uniform - rather a poor officer than a rich banker, as she put it - would contribute to her end.) In the genuine jet set, she was a temporary visitor. As far as dancing is concerned she was an autodidact, and her shows had really nothing to do with anything one can find in the Middle East, India or Southeast Asia. The point of marketing herself as a native woman of class who shared the ancient culture of the Orient etc. was that the nobility (men and women alike) for the first time ever could sit and watch someone undress. That would also be her lasting (?) contribution; to make strip tease acceptable. The words mata hari literally means "the eye of the day", compounded to matahari (she also spelt it "Mata-Hari") it means, literally, "sun" in Indonesian (similar meanings in related languages like Malayan); today it's also the name an Indonesian supermarket chain. Her first artist name was "Lady MacLeod" after a supposed lord father, and it didn't disappear from the posters until 1912, when the real MacLeod (her former husband) sued her. In August 1916, Captain Ladoux, head of the French counterespionage, told her that the British considered her a German spy. He didn't believe them, he said, but wondered if she would like to work for the Republic? She eventually accepted; a single mission on the highest level, for the mind-boggling price of one million franc. On her way to Belgium and her supposed mission, she was arrested by the British who took her for another spy. After her release, she had to go to Madrid, and that's essentially where her entire career as a spy took place, during two weeks in December 1916. For a start, she contacted the German embassy to gain their trust - she was to turn into a double agent. That the name of Mata Hari has become synonymous with a master spy is definitely a factoid, considering her very short career as well as her very limited skills in the craft (even when compared to her colleagues), not to say naïvety. (Like when she attempted to discuss her mission in clear in ordinary mail or over a plain telephone, or when she refused to use invisible ink.) The German military attaché obviously found this out within minutes. Mata Hari apparently didn't understand she had been revealed, but returned to Paris, happy with the (worthless) intelligence she thought she had fooled out of the attaché. The problem was that Mata Hari had indeed accepted to work for the Germans. In May 1916 she accepted the payment of twenty thousand francs (for services delivered, as the prosecution would later claim) which at the time was a small fortune. She insisted that she wanted to fool Germany of the money as payment for some furs she earlier had lost due to the involvement of that nation, and that she never gathered any intelligence for them. If she actually got the money for nothing, it would explain why the Germans had aggressions toward a useless agent, instead of feeding her with disinformation. But was it true? The court didn't believe her, in particular since they never got to see all the evidence, nor did they hear some key witnesses who could have defended Mata Hari. She was executed at October 15, 1917. It's worth noting that no German spies have claimed that Mata Hari was part of their organization but actually denied it . Whether she was a mythomaniac, Public Relations-minded, naif or simply had bad memory - or all of it - it's a fact that many of the myths that surround her were of her own fabrication.


The famed lady spy is on the move.... and the make.

It's beautiful Sylvia Kristel's turn to take a shot at playing the most famous female double-agent in World War I history. The twist here is that she also beds every other guy she sees in an art museum or on the train to her next 'performance'.... as it were. Primary focus is on Sylvia and her shapely boobs with little attention to spy stuff. Rather mundane, unless Sylvia is topless; not much happens and the film never seems to have anywhere to go, except to the predictable ending - after all, the film is based on a true story. That's OK, but did it have to be so boring?

Gaye Brown is sexy as a lesbian German political officer.


This film is a complete waste of time and celluloid. The actors (and I use that term lightly) wasted their time making this film. The people who went and saw this film (alas, I was one) wasted their time. Do you see a pattern here? This film STINKS, plain and simple. Don't waste your time on it. There are other sources of information about this famous woman. Utilize them instead of seeing this!


Yes, the film is almost like any other hindi film and yes its unbelievable how far better it is, than any of its contenders. A fabulous love story of a boy and a girl who marry each other against the wishes of their parents and society, 'Saathiya' shows the human side of love, stressing on the problems human beings deal with and work through in order to maintain a relationship.

The songs are amazing and their picturization magnificent. The movie has good doses of fun, emotion and tragedy. Rani Mukherjee looks ravishing and will take your breath away, she almost looks and acts like the perfect wife for any young man. Vivek Oberoi, who is very clearly the find of 2002 as far as the Hindi Film industry is concerned, turns in another great performance, he is absolutely flawless in the film, portraying the many emotional facets of his character 'Aditya Sehgal', with an almost unrecognizable ease. Shaad Ali puts in a fantastic effort for his first film, picking the perfect actors with the perfect locales to create a near perfect film. I cannot yet comment on the replayability of this film as I have only seen it once, but it is almost a surity that the movie would be as good on the second watch. A 10/10 film, and a must watch.


This film -- which I had heard almost nothing about before seeing it -- turned out to be a powerful, moving, and important love story. Rani Mukherjee's performance as Suhani -- the young M.D. and wife struggling to reach out to her husband after they elope -- is top notch and clearly deserving of an Oscar. Likewise, Vivek Oberoi does a wonderful job portraying her husband Aditya as he oscillates between playfulness and workaholism. Ali and Rathnam's story is superb -- combining drama and social commentary in a complex and satisfying tapestry. As always, Anil Mehta does a fabulous job lensing the story -- his cinematography captures a wide range of urban landscapes that subtly adds depth and context to the story (and be on the lookout for an in-joke concerning his name in the film). And, of course, A. R. Rahman's score is terrific -- particularly when pouring out of a theater's surround-sound system! Not to be missed!


I saw Saathiya on December 20 at Naz8 Cinemas and again on December 25 at the same venue.I liked it even more the second time and intend to see it many more times on the big screen before I finally own the original DVD of the movie. Vivek Oberoi is a talent to watch.After his triumph in Company, he is superb here.Rani Mukerji as Suhani will greatly increase her fan following with this movie. A.R. Rahman and Anil Mehta who were also part of last year's Lagaan are once again magnificent. Shah Rukh Khan and Tabu make brief appearances in guest roles, but they leave an impact and make a great pair.Someone should cast them together in lead roles in a great future movie.Gulzar's dialogues are the best he has ever written. His lyrics may not be outstanding but serve the score well. Above all Shaad Ali in his first directorial effort has surpassed many veterans. His is the most assured debut since Farhan Akhtar's in Dil Chahta Hai.2002 will be remembered for two movies: Devdas and Saathiya.


Remakes, remakes and remakes. Some from Hollywood and some from South India. And the results at the box-office are mostly the same. FLOP! But why? Because these remakes can't achieve the status of the original versions (although good story, good performances or good music). Therefore directors are remaking their own films in Hindi but are failing, as well, because there is too much South Indian touch (Nayak  Mudhalvan; Rehna Tere Dil Main  Minnale; Dil Hi Dil Mein  Kadhal Dhinam; Doli Sajake Rakhna  Aniathiypravu etc.).

Saathiya, a Mani Ratnam creation, is a great movie. The film's strength is that it is suitable to North Indian milieu but fails to reach the quality that `Alai Payuthey' spread.<br /><br /> So where is its weakness then? Vivek Oberoi? Certainly not! It's a difficult job to top Madhavan's great performance in `Alai Payuthey'. Vivek won where Madhavan failed.

 Rani Mukherji then? She portrayed her character, Suhani Sharma, completely different as her counterpart Shalini did in the original version. Both were great and for me difficult to say who was the better one.

So A.R. Rahman? He was the one who gave the wonderful scent to `Alai Payuthey' which you won't forget so easily. The songs and the background score which is filled with soulful tunes are absolutely great. It's one of Rahman's best works and he knows that he can't top it. As a result he didn't bring too many new songs which would destroy his early work. His new songs are nice to hear and fit to the North Indian milieu. The orchestra in the climax where Vivek apologizes to Rani is absolutely mind-blowing.

Gulzar then? I must admit that I don't understand Hindi and not much Tamil (thanks to English-subtitling) but the songs have good meanings and are as good as Vairamuthu's work for `Alai Payuthey'.

Perhaps Shah Rukh Khan and Tabu? Shah Rukh Khan is fantastic in his 10 minutes and portrayed the role differently as Arwind Swamy did. Tabu is unfortunately not as good as Khushboo who has done a superb job in Tamil.

But where is then the problem? It's certainly unfair to compare a youngster's work like Shaad Ali's with that one of a genius like Mani Ratnam's. Ali's direction is very good and is the best debutant director since Farhan Akhtar for Dil Chahta Hai. But small scenes which might be unnecessary are missing to achieve a very good quality. For example, in Saathiya `Aditya' has no one whom he can tell all his sorrows and lands up as a depressed husband. `Karthik' in Alai Payuthey talks with his Malayalee neighbour/houseowner (in Hindi Tinnu Anand) about love, marriage etc. and gets new hopes to set a new beginning in his marriage. The climax also in Tamil which has a more realistic look is better than in Hindi which is too filmy despite Vivek's performance and Rahman's orchestra. A clear parallel between Shah Rukh Khan/Tabu and Vivek Oberoi/Rani Mukherji could not been attained, as well.

But Ali has given the film a more youthful look than Mr Ratnam has done (more hanging out with friends, parties etc.) and like mentioned before, a suitable film to North Indian audiences and it is a film that is worth watching (though not as good as `Alai Payuthey').

Alai Payuthey 9.5/10; Saathiya 8.5/10


This is the best movie ever! Don't miss out on it! Vivek Oberoi and Rani Mukherjee have done SUPERB EXCELLENT acting!! The story, its not really very special or unique but the way Vivek and Rani have acted, it seems even better. So if you haven't seen it yet, go see it right now. This isn't something to be missed!!!!!!!!!!!


Saathiya, a movie that i wanted to see because of its beautiful songs. I never expected that the story would be as enjoyable as the songs. This movie is made as simple as they could and yet made it look nice without any huge sets, or without of having characters in the story who are like supposely equivalent to Bill Gates. This is a movie which most of the people could relate to especially considering most of the indian population living in india lives through middle class values which is addressed in the movie. The romance is not overexaggerated. Basically, talking about the movie a viewer would not be disappointed. The direction was very veteran like considering it was Shaad Ali's first film. He did a fabulous job at the climax point. To bring out the performances worthy of awards and praises from the leading actors, Vivek Oberoi and Rani Mukherjee. Rani Mukherjee has done her part better then her male counterpart but I would not dare take anything away from Vivek Oberoi. Vivek lends a good support but it is clear that movie's driving force was Rani Mukherjee, movie belonged to Rani Mukherjee arguably her best performance ever till date. Overall, it is a good heartwarming experience with good tunes to hummm in isolation. Characters will easily relate to you, it is that beautifully played out.


Yesterday I went to see saathiya at theatre and let me tell you that it is a great movie. Debutant director Shaad Ali has done a great job in directing this movie. Ashok Mehta's cinematography is just too good. Vivek Oberoi has done an excellent job. He shows a lot of acting skills. I personally feel that he is a very promising actor. Rani Mukherjee also acted very well. Among other actors I think Sandhya Mridul acted very well and Tanuja was just natural. The only thing I didn't like the movie was its ending. The ending was too filmy. My Rating - 9.5/10


A great directorial debut by Shaad Ali, and what can I say about the young Vivek Oberoi!!! He has bettered himself in every following movie. He is the future star to watch. Days of Hrithik Roshan (the dancing monkey as I like to call him) are long gone and forgotten. All great actors have said that the best way to act is not to act at all. Let yourself show through your character. And Vivek personifies this principle to perfection. He is a genuine actor. No boastful muscles, and no exceptional dancing skills, yet so effective. The key is his originality. He knows his limits, and doesn't try very hard to be the character that he is playing - in one word - effortless. He is the kind of guy you and I can relate to - typical desi neighborhood boy.

This movie will make you laugh, make you cry, and keep you glued to the screen. Music is excellent and songs seem appropriate to the occasions where they appear. Script is entertaining, realistic, and very tightly written. The movie is packed with genuine performances. Except Satish Shah, whose character wasn't given much leverage, all others leave an impact. Rani has done a wonderful job, and looks very sweet, as always - chubby & adorable. Direction is spotless. Shaad has done an excellent job keeping the film story from deviating off the theme.

Overall, a good entertainer. This one is going into my DVD collection. Oh yes, Sir! By all means!


The movie is basically above two people who love each other and marry against parents' wishes. But soon after getting married, marital problems creep in and soon both Oberoi and Mukherjee think they have made a big mistake. Watch the movie to see what ensues.


Six months after I saw this movie I saw Chalte Chalte. Rumors had it that the two movies were similar. Yes the concept was similar yet the movies are completely different. This movie lies above Chalte Chalte. This movie is good at a pace. The biggest problem in the Chalte Chalte was it's pace. The storyline in this movie is just as good as Chalte Chalte, but direction is ten times better here. However, Chalte Chalte had terrible direction. This movie's direction is just above average. Reason being is no problem is being solved or for that matter started. Reasons why the marriage is falling apart are for immaturity of Vivek's character which was something Rani already hated from the beginning. However, the movie still is very good, and one wouldn't realize flaws unless you go deep into the movie like me. Rani Mukherjee is much more beautiful in the Chalte Chalte, yet gives a more charming performance here (looks aren't everything). Her husky voice works very well for her fight scenes. Vivek Oberoi is also good. He isn't the lover boy type though I have to give him credit for trying. While Chalte Chalte had more of a commercial film feeling, this movie is more like an art film. I am not a huge fan of art films, but don't get me wrong, that's just me. The songs were pretty good though I found them to be a little (not too much) overrated. Millions of people I know love the title song yet it didn't appeal to me. It's a pretty good song. My favorite song was Chori Pe Chori, and luckily the rap portions are kept to a minimum in the movie, otherwise I cringe every time I hear them on the soundtrack. It is a continuation of Sharara (with HOT Shamita Shetty), and sadly got unnoticed due to its dumb rap. Chalka Chalka Re is very nice song, and it's picturization works very well. Aye Udi Udi Udi is one of my favorite songs and there isn't much to say about its music video. O Humdum Soniyo Re could've been a good danced, but is just left to the background. Then Chupke Se is another good song while Naina Milake didn't appeal to me. To end this comment is that I will recommend to watch this movie, but you'll need to know the story.


The pre-release hype was huge, the soundtrack became the second best-selling soundtrack of 2002, and to add, it had names such as AR Rehman (music director), Gulzar (lyricst), and two actors with a huge fan following, Rani Mukherjee and Vivek Oberoi.

The film opened with an average opening in India, UK, and the USA, because it was released alongside the much-delayed star studded Kaante. Then, slowly and gradually, the films collections picked up, and the film managed to gross Rs. 15 crores in India, £288,004 in Great Britain, and $324,111 in America, becoming a hit.

Suhani and Aditya meet at a local wedding. Weeks later, Suhani moves to Mumbai to become a doctor. Aditya meets her at the train station, trying to woo her, but she won't give in. After Aditya's father disrespects Suhani's parents while coming for the alliance and Suhani going to training do they get married secretly. At Dina's (Suhani's sister) alliance, it breaks of Suhani's marriage, and the couple are kicked out of their houses, and move in with each other. Soon, their personalities clash, and an accident almost changes their lives drastically.

Vivek Oberoi delivers his third great performance (following Company and Road), which is amazing for a newcomer. He emotes so well, and has a great passion in his eyes. Rani Mukherjee gives it her all, and steals your heart. She's proved herself as a true actress here.

The music is amazing. All the picturisations are upto mark. The title track is best in audio and film, while other great songs 'Naina Milake', 'Chhalka Chhalka Re', and 'Chupke Se' stay with you. 'Aye Udi Udi's picturisation is perfect, and demonstrates the "shows and characters" they give each other in the bedroom!

If there is any fool: whether they are South Asian, Indo-Caribbean, gori, kali, Chinese, Arab, PLEASE SEE THIS FILM! We can all learn to live life, and stop all these small problems. Because when someone you love almost passes away or does pass away, everything doesn't matter anymore.

10 out of 10


Shaad Ali's Saathiya is one of the best films of 2002. Everything -- from the story line, the cinematography, locations, emotions, performances to A.R. Rahman's beautiful soundtrack -- makes it a worthy film. The film marks the directorial debut of Shaad Ali, and it shows he has not gone far from his father (the great Muzaffar Ali) in terms of talent and imagination. He extracts good performances from his actors, he has a sense and understanding of emotion, he portrays the entire story realistically, and that's what makes his first work so great (although he would ruin that image in his future projects BAB and JBJ). Rani Mukerji is the main highlight of the frame, the soul of the entire film. This is her career-best performance. She is simply flawless in every single scene - beautiful, vibrant, natural and convincing. Vivek Oberoi is a talented actor and acts very well, though he is not as good as his female costar. He does have to work on the more emotional expressions, but otherwise gives a complete performance. Gulzar and A.R.Rahman bring life to the film with a superb list of songs, each of which is a gem. My favourite songs include "Saathiya", "Aye Udi Udi", "Chhalka Chhalka Re", "Chupke Se" and "O Humdum Soniyo Re". To sum it up, Saathiya is a very impressive, entertaining and authentic picture on relationships and marriage. I highly recommend you to see it.


Has been such a LOOOOOOONG time since I have seen a good Bollywood movie (Bollywood- as opposed to maybe entertaining- but uninspired unBollywood 'Hollywood-inspired' movies) that Saathiya felt like the best Bollywood I have ever seen.

But it isn't very far from the best Bollywood movie.

The typical vintage Bollywood should have good music, good humor, witty dialogue, and a great, great, great climax.

A R Rahman does it again, with great, great, great music.

And it probably has the wittiest, most-intelligent dialogue in a Bollywood movie ever.

Great, great, great (have I overdone the repeating-adjectives-three-times yet?) comedy.

Despite what the promoters have been claiming, the story really isn't original. For God's sake it is based on another Indian (non-Bollywood movie) Many previous movies have dealt with the romances of married couples- although not nearly so effectively.

Also it doesn't have the overbearing, mushy-mushy, f*cked up relatives that Bollywood believes all its movies should have. Oh yeah, It also has great, great, great (have I overdone it yet?) acting. Both the protagonists have acted well- and the female protagonist wasn't just placed there to look good. And Hritik, move your shapely yet non-talented ass over. The REAL next big thing is here (although I would like to ask the real next big thing what he is doing with that biker bag slung over his shoulders throughout the movie).

Also the movie has real honest-to-goodness characters (which is more than that can be said about some of the over-the-top characters from some of the 'good' Bollywood movies)


*Spoiler Warning*

Saathiya is a film about a couple who have the courage to follow their heart but discover themselves and each other - that is they mature - as they go along. The film itself has a lot of maturity in how it deals with the subject and for once young adults are shown as intelligent human beings rather than the DTPH, KKHH or DDLJ type plot-driven puppets.

But the film's director Shaad Ali lacks the courage to make a really honest film down to the last reel. The script is an original, the acting is superb and Rahman's music fits in very well with the narrative. Rani Mukherjee's performance in the film reminded me of what she did in Hey Ram. You give this lady a role of substance and she knows how to portray it beautifully. And I am really impressed by Vivek Oberoi as a very secure and mature actor. In Road as well as this film, he very subtly takes a backseat to the more high profile Bajpai and Mukherjee and gives them a chance to feed off of him.

One thing that had me a little ticked off was why couldn't the songs be picturised in continuation with the narrative instead of some fantasy costumes, backup dancers and abstract movements that seemed out of place. Also the Shamita Shetty song was totally out of place and unrequired. But inspite of that, the way the Adi-Suhaani relationship unfolds had me totally glued until the last twenty minutes.

I didn't mind when they used Suhaani's accident as a plot device for the ending. Although they could have done with a 5 minute scene involving some more of the beautiful dialogue of Gulzar and Vivek and Rani's superb chemistry onscreen. Anyways, even if you go along with the accident, why the heck did we need Shahrukh and Tabu all of a sudden. To me it showed that Mr. Shaad Ali was not confident enough of his film standing on its own merit and therefore he needed to add some solid starpower to draw in the audience. Or maybe it was pressure from Yash Chopra or Mani Ratnam. In any case I totally felt betrayed on what had been an almost brilliant film till the last 20 minutes. To Ali's credit though, his use of flashbacks was very well-done.

From seeming like one of the best Bollywood films of the year, Saathiya ends up being an average entertainer. On my part, I will try to delete the last 20 minutes from my memory of the film. 7/10.


I have just seen SAATHIYA, and I never new that I could be so gripped by a Bollywood type movie. I was loving almost every minute.EXCELLENT.I just wish I could find love like that. Gave me a lump in my throat when I thought Suhani was going to die. Rani Mukherjee ( Suhani ) is gorgeous,and boy can she dance.I hope I can get it on DVD. I gave it 9 and not 10 because I did not like the hospital part. When Suhani crosses the road and gets run over by the van I could not believe what I just saw. HOW did they do that. Looks very real. The film is very colourful. The dancing gets you jumping about in your seat. Lovely to watch good looking women dance together.Everybody needs to see this film if only to make us all realise how ugly it is to argue and be grumpy in life.


Vivek Oberoi is a student who sees Rani Mukherjee everyday on the train and one day he asks her out...They date and then decide to elope...When Rani's father finds out he disowns her and she moves in with Vivek...At first they are two lovers who love everything about each other and then the fights begins...the fall outs...the making up and then Rani is caught up in a accident that changes everything..

This film has some great music like good Bollywood movies; Chupe Ke se...Hum dum...Saathiya....

The acting is good as well and will keep you gripped...The sad thing is that this was a promising start to Vivek's career...and then he fell...I haven't watched a good film from him since..


It is not often that I watch a Bollywood movie in whole, simply because they are usually so embarrassing to watch even alone! I just watch them for music and for the, so far unmatched, choreography! But this film just captured my imagination and kept me arrested till the end. The only other Hindi films that I can speak of with similar admiration are 'Mumbai Se Aaya Mera Dost' - My Friend from Mumbai, a widely misunderstood and undervalued Indian gem, the Raj Kapoor classic, 'Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behthi Hai' - The Man from the Ganges Confluence - and recent work by maverick and pioneering art house directors of the modern India like Nagesh Kukunoor - 'Iqbal' 2005, Madhur Bhandarkar - 'Page 3' - and Rakesh Omprakash Mehra - 'Rang De Basanti' - The Colour of Sacrifice - 2006.

Experimental in almost all departments, but handled by the whole crew and the cast, including the first time director Shaad Ali, with great virtuosity and panache, this is a film that everyone should see, if not for anything but just for the sheer, unforgettable experience of the breathtaking cinematography, the brilliant location selection, masterly costume, art and set design, and above all, the painstakingly executed, digital editing and subtle video effects that puts Hollywood studios to shame. If you are now encouraged to see this movie, watch for the way the camera meaningfully mimics and follows the act as if the viewer is there and sharing the experience of the scene. This filming and editing effect is so subtly handled by both the highly experienced cinematographer and the editor so that the viewer's eyes move with the camera so effortlessly, and after a short while, get accustomed to it. The effect is most prevalent though with songs and choreography, which highlights the composer, A. R. Rahman's quite apparent contribution to the success of this film.

The highly acclaimed and surprisingly very young composer A. R. Rahman, easily the Alberto Iglesias of India, has single-handedly pioneered a new kind of world music, mixing the diverse traditional and folk music of India with both western and eastern classical and popular music. The result is a unique and continuously evolving sound that has reverberated around the world to such an extent that it has influenced a wide range of musicians around the world. 'Saathiya' is an excellent example of how his music influences the look, texture and feel of a film, very similar to that of masters like John Williams, Tan Dun and, in particular to the much cherished collaborations between Zbigniew Preisner and the late master Krzysztof Kieslowski. It is hard to get the 9 songs of this film out of your head once you watched the movie, not just because A. R. Rahman is a genius, but because the collaboration between him and the rest of the crew and cast has been just perfect.

As an added bonus, the film is much shorter than the usual Bollywood formulaic crap, and, because it has the ability to capture the viewer's attention and hold it to the end, the time just flies while you are having fun. It also is a light-hearted attempt to examine the lives and loves of the youth of the modern and very westernised India, and doesn't bother the viewer too much with too serious and pretentious issues of life and the universe! Watch it and you wouldn't regret it, except for the last scene! Once you have seen 'Saathiya', you should see the original Tamil film , 'AlaiPayuthey' (2000) by writer director Mani Ratnam, a highly creative director to watch for. This is so much admired by Tamil speaking people around the world that it has been posted so many times as low resolution videos on both YouTube and GoogleVideo, so that you can watch it free in full as well as in parts. Despite the origin, the two films are different in atmosphere: Tamil one is quite rural looking while, the Hindi one is quite modern and urban in setting. They are both equally stupendous cinematic creations on their own right despite the differences.

BrownPolar Edinburgh April 2008


The idea behind Saathiya is definitely a new one - what happens after the lovebirds marry? This has made the movie a success with nearly everyone. The stars' good looks helped make the movie popular with the young.

The reason I find Saathiya lacking is that it simply does not come anywhere near the level of the original Tamil movie - Alaipayuthey (2000). I watched Alaipayuthey more than 10 times and remembered every scene and dialog in it after the first viewing. In comparison, Saathiya was a forgettable movie. I was very disappointed by its quality because I am a big fan of Hindi movies and had been eagerly awaiting Saathiya's release.

Firstly, the chemistry between the stars - what chemistry??? Rani seemed so old compared to Vivek. If you saw Madhavan and Shalini in Alaipayuthey, you would think they were a real couple. Despite a 10-year age gap between the Tamil stars, there was no hint of that. 30 years old then, Madhavan was so realistic in his portrayal of a love-struck young guy - physically and emotionally. Shalini, being only 20 then, could easily showcase the role of a college student. Rani and Vivek might have played their roles with conviction but a significant portion of the movie depended on the chemistry between them, which was lacking. A number of the scenes in Alaipayuthey brought a smile to your lips because of the interaction between the lovers.

My second grouse with Saathiya is the story. The incidents in Saathiya seemed so fake. I got the feeling that Shaad Ali changed the incidents in an attempt to differentiate Saathiya from Alaipayuthey. But everyone should know one thing by now - no one should distort a Mani Ratnam product. He is, after all, the best movie maker.

I did not like the supporting characters either. They failed to play their roles with 100% conviction. Rani's reel mother and sister did not look or act like middle-class people who were financially struggling. The mother wore expensive-looking saris, while the sister acted more like a rich party animal.

I am an Indian living overseas who might have outdated views on the traditional Indian qualities. But, surely there is not much of a difference between a Tamil and a Hindi traditional family. How is it that in Saathiya, love is looked down on by the parents but Rani is allowed to wear clothes (shorts) that should seem objectionable to such traditional parents?

All these factors combined diluted the reality of the movie. For those of you who disagree with me, watch Alaipayuthey.


Well, it's got a stellar cast, an okay story and it's a Yashraj production. I have to admit, when I first heard about this film, I hoped to watch it and rate it was perfect 10. But it's far from it. It's just an average film with a power punch packing cast!

Okay, Rani Mukherjee plays a young medical student who one day bumps into a mama's boy (played by Vivek Oberoi) at a wedding, and he instantly becomes smitten with her. Aboard two separate trains en route to different parts of the city of Mumbai, they spot each other again and a game of cat and mouse ensues daily until he musters up the courage to come and speak to her about his feelings. They slowly begin to warm up to each other and soon enough Oberoi's character sends his parents to go and check out his beloved's parents. His parents, wealthier than some get to the beat down shack where their son's beloved calls home with her parents and can hardly hide their resentment. It isn't too long that they begin to get on each other's nerves, and the meeting ends in a disaster.

When Rani's character meets with Vivek's again, she decides to end their relationship because his parents were rude to hers. Vivek pleads with her then proposes to her, and they secretly get marriage. Everything goes smoothly until it becomes time for Rani's younger sister to get married. The potential family comes in to meet theirs and naturally they wonder why the older one isn't married yet, so the propose that one of their other sons marries her, that is when Rani's character drops the bombshell on them all that she is already married. This causes her sister's marriage deal to be canceled and not to mention the fact that her parents disown her because of this. Rani's character then goes off to live with her husband (Vivek) and things go smoothly for a while until they start dealing with issues that surround every married couple. Rani becomes insecure about the marriage and herself that she begins to see things that aren't there. One afternoon, she spies her husband hugging a woman at a train stop and mistakes it for an affair, when she later finds out that the woman her husband was hugging was none other than her little sister, she races home to make things right with her husband again but meets a very bad accident.

That's when the Yashraj Peep whip out one of two people who probably brought Saathiya the crowd it did at the box office. The car that hit Rani's character was being driven by Tabu (in a special appearance) and she is married to Shah Rukh Khan (another special appearance) whom she races home to tell what she has done, after fleeing the scene of a crime, leaving Rani at her own mercy. SRK then races to the hospital to see if the woman is still alive, where he pretends to be her husband in order to save her life. That's Saathiya for you, yup! The much hyped Saathiya. The Best performance in the entire film belongs to Vivek Oberoi, he is just stellar and splendidly holds his own in the one powerful scene he has with the King Khan. Oh! blink and you'll miss an item number cameo by Shamita Shetty as she tries to steal Vivek away from Rani. There's also a wonderful song in the film called 'Chupke Se' performed in the film by Rani and Vivek. Listen to it and weep! Yes! it's that beautiful.


I'd heard about this movie because a friend of mine let me know that Adam Brody was in it. She's really into The OC and wanted me to watch it with her. I was curious to see what Adam could do outside of the TV show and was completely pleasantly surprised. Adam Brody's acting was excellent.

The movie can appeal to both the young and old alike given the diverse cast. I was immediately drawn to it more because of hearing that Illeana Douglass was in it. I'm a fan of her!

The film can also be especially appealing at this time since it deals with losing someone in the war. It was such a touching movie, it made me cry and I totally recommend it to anyone!


the story was real good and the acting made it very interesting

for Adam Brody's first big role he was awesome as was the young Vietnamese girl.I don"t know if it was a true story or not but i found it very entertaining as I always wondered how they did these sort of searches.i watched it with my teenage son who also liked it.especially the snake scene with Adam Brody.i think it also gave him an idea of what was going on with all the Vietnam issues of the 1960s/70s.i have an older brother who is a Vietnam vet and i have recommended to him and his family.i like that it was both serious and funny as it was a very emotional movie especially with the music.


EXCELLENT Flick! Adam Brody is amazing! A must see movie! I wasn't sure what to expect, but being a fan his show I wanted to see Adam in this role and I was happy that I did! I give it an "A" and would recommend it to everyone.

I can tell you that this is one of the better movies of it's kind that I have see in a very long time. The story line is so well done and I was captivated by it. I like a good dramatic story and I was hoping to be taken back into someone else's world and this movie did just that.

It was also great to see Brody give such a different performance. I was more than impressed. Enjoyed it a lot!


Missing Brendan is an awesome movie. Anyone would love it because it's so interesting, and teenage girls out there: Adam Brody! Need I say more? Anyway, the setting is gorgeous and the acting is phenomenal, I highly recommend it! Go out and buy the DVD, you'll love it, I promise. Even though the movie deals with more serious issues, it's still very funny and you laugh a lot. It's a great combination of drama and a bit of comedy. Most ages can watch it, I'd say 13 and older is fine. I just really want to convince people to get this movie, because it's so interesting ans the storyline is so unique. It's also great for Adam Brody fans to see the acting change from this to the O.C. Two thumbs up!


I just saw this film at the Starz Denver Film Festival. It was an amazing film. Anyone who knows anything about independent films knows that this film is an amazing achievement. Even someone who has never even seen an independent film can appreciate the great story line and the beautiful locations. Besides the four different locations and the great cinematography for a completely unknown cast the acting was great. The lead Kristine Blackport was great. Her first major role, doing all of her own stunts and overall just doing a phenomenal job. I definitely recommend checking this one out! Also if you stick around you can see in the credits that she was responsible for the music which was really great. I think we will probably be seeing her sometime in the future.


OK so the story line is different but the characters are cliché and the actors are appalling. Especially the lead actor (Kristine Blackport), she thinks too highly of her acting abilities and you can definitely tell! I'm really surprised that she is the lead actress in this movie, I mean it has independent written all over it, but still she is atrocious, many of the extras could probably have done the role/movie more justice. The music also doesn't help at all, it's annoying at best. The only thing that made this movie watchable was definitely the cinematography! It was artful and flowing and did the most towards helping understand what was going on, although the scene changes were a little jumpy, visually this film was great! Acting-wise it was beyond poor!


I saw "Juncture" recently at the Mill Valley Film Festival and I'll start off by saying I left 15 minutes before the end. A few twists, yes, but I found this thriller mind-numbingly repetitive, with less than mediocre performances and dialog. It was impressive visually, and I credit the filmmakers for squeezing the most production value out of a small budget. Unfortunately, it was rife with stereotypes, and there have been movies about female vigilantes before so I can't give it high marks in the originality department. I came to the conclusion after 90 minutes that even the most incredibly shocking twist ending couldn't make up for the hour and a half of dreariness I was subjected to. The lead, Kristine Blackport is a beautiful woman to look at, but her performance was just plain leaden. The earthy girlfriend, the sensitive love interest, the CEO mentor who could have walked out of any number of 80's plots, and the too-easy-to-hate "perps" she knocks off were just sloppy stereotypes plain and simple. Throw in a few clumsy homages, and you have something which might be an amusing diversion on DVD at three in the morning, washed down with cold pizza and beer. I would like to say it might do okay in the Direct-to-DVD market, but I'd still end up hitting the fast forward button.


Not much of a thriller, Juncture is a beautiful drama that also raises questions of moral importance.

Lead Kristine Blackport (as Anna Carter) sometimes gives you the shudder. She makes you feel what Anna would feel if were in her place.

Plot: Anna Carter is informed by her doctor that she has three months to live because she suffers from frontal-lobe Glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer). Tumors in the frontal lobe can cause changes in personality, thus the question whether her decision to kill child-molesters and other criminals is a matter of choice or of psychiatric nature hangs unanswered. As the plot goes forth, the moral and philosophical issues arising are inevitable, and the surprising end is a statement you can't forget.

I liked it very much.


This film is much better than the ratings its been getting from others. I've watched many other thrillers over the years, most with larger budgets, and would place this one somewhere in the middle of the pack. Blackport gives a decent acting performance, though not of the caliber of other great "thriller" actresses such as Jodie Foster and Laura Linney, and yet the movie was quite compelling and intense. Sure, the story plot was simple, and some of the cast came across a bit stilted, but nevertheless it held my rapt attention for its entire length. I look forward to the next sequel in the 3-part trilogy about Anna Carter. Given her medical condition and her plan, it makes for a fascinating story.


A dying Protagonist Blackport goes on a an angel of vengeance killing spree meeting out her own kind of justice on those who got away with it.

Its been done many times before, but I have to admit this film is well made and carries the storyline very well and the main character is top notch and I must admit, I have never heard of Kristine Blackport, but she has done an excellent job of portraying the warped her heroine of the movie.

Also top marks to the writer and director who have in effect made one hell of a good movie.