Datasets:

thejaminator

/

imdb_rewarded

like 0

A beautiful postcard of New York. The thing I enjoyed most was being able to watch this with my whole family and not cringe waiting for a stupid toilet humor joke to appear. It never did. My teenagers liked it too. My son for Natasha Henstridge and my daughter for Michael Vartan. My wife and I commented that we could not remember the last time we could sit with the kids and ALL enjoy something. This film told a story that felt comfortable but not old or done. The ending came with a twist which we all liked too. If you are not just a cynical person and have are willing to let a story unfold then this is for you. As a guy it takes a lot to hold my interest when it comes to romantic movies and this one did. I recommend it and we need more of these films to watch.

Sure, this movie is sappy and sweet and full of clichés, but it's entertaining, and that's what I watch movies for. To be entertained. Natasha Henstridge is stunning, even with the short hair. Her smile is radiant and her beauty can't be disguised. As for Michael Vartan, I'm sure the women love him. The two of them seemed to really like eacb other in this film. I don't understand the comments that there was no chemistry between them. I guess we see what we want to see.<br /><br />Olivia d'Abo and Michael Rigoli were fun to watch, even if d'Abo's British accent did creep into her supposed Bronx speech. To tell you the truth I hadn't really noticed it until I read these comments, but I went back to the DVD and now her dialogue sounds more British than American to me, but she was ideal for her role with that one exception. <br /><br />It's a story of two nice people who are getting married to significant others, but who find their soul mates in one another. It may be an unlikely story, but who says movies are all supposed to play like documentaries? It is no more unrealistic than any of the dramas that are screened every hour on the tube. That's why we watch them, to escape from the humdrum of daily living for a short time and enter the world of the characters on the screen. I thought these actors did a good job of it, but hey, I'm a sentimental guy who tears up easily. Don't get me wrong though, it has to be a sentimental scene, and this movie had plenty of those.<br /><br />I give it 9/10 only because I'm saving my 10/10 for that yet unseen super magnificent movie that I know will come along some day. If you see it advertised as coming up on the Movie Channel or Lifetime Movies, or whatever, make a note to watch it. I think you'll like it.

A sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths as they prepare for their weddings. The ex-cop writer and the public school teacher fall for each other in this great new york setting, even though they are marrying other people. Maybe a little trite in that the "partners" are both type A personalities, while our protagonists are much more relaxed. Not anything heavy, but it made me smile. And hey for the guys - sell the Natasha Henstridge angle, and the gals - sell them the sappy romance, everyone wins!

I'd have given this film a few stars, simply because it was a "Lifetime" presentation actually filmed in the location represented in the story - here, New York City. Most on this channel, whether "set" there, in rural Iowa, Oregon, Virginia, L.A. etc., are filmed in Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto or some other Canadian locale.<br /><br />But if there ever were one deserving the top rating - 10* on this site, it's this movie. Certainly not for originality, for this story has been done many times, in many variations, with several very similar to this specific one. It's also been done pretty often on the big screen, with mega-stars, past and present, from Cary Grant, James Garner, Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, et al - and Deborah Kerr, Doris Day, Meg Ryan, and many more. I can think of at least 10-12 more, just as prominent, past to present, off the top of my head, who could be added now, and there are probably many others which could be brought to mind.<br /><br />Not to drone on, but my point is that, in my opinion, this is by far one of the best of this genre I've seen. I caught it by chance on a mid-day Friday, at a time when I had the TV on only because I was taking a couple of hours following a particularly hectic week. I'd never run across this flick in the 8 years since it was made. And, while the two leads have done enough to be known to most, they were completely unknown to me. The only two actors I knew were Phyllis Newman (Anna's mother) whom I'd seen in some things from her younger days, and Michael Rispoli (Henry, Charlie's best friend) who was outstanding as "Gramma," the menacing juice loan, tough, street guy from "Rounders." <br /><br />The chance meeting and coupling between both leads' best friends, as a sub-story romance, with the correlation of their being such to Anna and Charlie being only revealed to all later, is an oft-done plot contrivance within the genre, but makes no difference to the enjoyment here (in fact, it enhances it).<br /><br />Checking some other comments, I agree completely with those which are the most positive. The primary word describing this film is ENGAGING, in caps. This adjective describes the performers; the characters; the chemistry between and among all of the characters, in whatever combination presented, and all of the supporting and even minor roles.<br /><br />I love films with a "harder edge:" "Rounders;" the escapist Schwarzenegger/Stallone fare; "Goodfellows;" even the classics like "Casablanca," "Gone With the Wind," "Citizen Kane." But for pure, uncomplicated enjoyment, this one was outstanding. With a bare fraction of their budgets, it was equal to the results achieved by "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle." And Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan couldn't have done better than Natasha Henstridge and Michael Vartan here; the co-stars and support personnel here were equivalent to those in these mega-films, as well.

Does anyone know the exact quote about "time and love" by George Ede aka, Father Fitzpatrick in the move, It had to be you? He was talking to Charlie and Annna in the church as they were leaving? If not I will have to rent the movie. This was a great movie. I also loved Serendipity! Great love story for the soul! <br /><br />I met my one true love (my Soulmate) and although I had the experience to meet him when I had least expecting it, I wasn't ready for that kind of emotional relationship. <br /><br />Altho, we did marry, I wasn't mature enough to give as much as I thought I would. I got complacent and took his love for granted and he withstood it for 7 years. <br /><br />He finally left with resentment but we are still hurt and angry & in disbelief about the way it turned out. I had some very hard lessons to learn and we have now been apart 3 years.<br /><br />This movie meant a lot because I am still waiting on reconciling with my one and only true love. I can NOW appreciate that distinct feeling inside of me and the quote of Father Fitzpatrick rang true for me.<br /><br />I know when he has healed enough to trust me again, we will remarry.<br /><br />Don't EVER GET COMPLACENT AND TAKE TRUE LOVE FOR GRANTED! IT HAS BEEN THE HARDEST LESSON OF MY LIFE. <br /><br />Also the music in this movie is OUTSTANDING and MEANINGFUL! This movie is DEEP and spiritually uplifting. TRUE LOVE is worth waiting for, if it is meant to be, it will, no matter what, IT WILL HAPPEN! Nothing is impossible, even when it's the second time around! Thanks!

As we all know a romantic comedy is the genre with the ending already known. The two leads always have to get together. Late in the third act I was trying to figure out how this will wrap up and how they will end up together. A clue was given right from the start, but you'll never realize it until the end. It's a simple hook, but it works. It Had To Be You cover a lot of the usual ground, but takes a fresh spin when ever possible. I liked all the NY characters and I loved the locations. It's a postcard of NY. Also it was nice to watch a film and not find anything offensive in it. So, if you like a good old fashion romantic movie ... then this is for you.

This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.

But the fun is in the journey.<br /><br />I found this movie to be extremely enjoyable, not only are both leads extremely easy on the eyes, the humor from the supporting cast and the jokes actually made me laugh out loud several times.<br /><br />Yes, it's predictable, and yes, it's a cliché romantic comedy. But the point is that it's a sweet story, the message about finding your one true love also rings true in many ways.<br /><br />The dialog is dead-on and the acting is well done on all parts, and over the top for comic effect. The Bulgari scene is worth it's weight in gold, the actress there deserves honorable mention! For those that panned it for being predictable - If you want a film with twists and turns that keep you guessing... then you want a thriller. This is a romantic comedy... it touched my heart and made me realize that I was lucky enough to find my true love in life, and it has been worth every effort along the way.<br /><br />Great date movie, great movie for a happy cry...

This was a superb episode, one of the best of both seasons. Down right horror for a change, with a story that is way way above the average MOH episodes, if there is such a thing. A man's wife is almost burned to death in a tragic car wreck, in which he was driving. His airbag worked, her's didn't. She is burned beyond recognition (great makeup btw), and not given much of a chance to live without a full skin graft. BUT, even in a coma, she keeps dying but brought back by modern technology, and when she does die for a few minutes, her ghost appears as a very vengeful spirit. Carnage of course ensues, and also some extremely gory killings, and also, some extremely sexy scenes. What more could you ask for, you might ask? Well, not much, because this baby has it all, and a very satirical ending, that should leave a smile on most viewers faces. I just loved Rob Schmidt's (Wrong Turn) direction too, he has a great knack for horror. Excellent episode, this is one I'm buying for sure.

Maybe it's just because I have an intense fear of hospitals and medical stuff, but this one got under my skin (pardon the pun). This piece is brave, not afraid to go over the top and as satisfying as they come in terms of revenge movies. Not only did I find myself feeling lots of hatred for the screwer and lots of sympathy towards the "screwee", I felt myself cringe and feel pangs of disgust at certain junctures which is really a rare and delightful thing for a somewhat jaded horror viewer like myself. Some parts are very reminiscant of "Hellraiser", but come off as tribute rather than imitation. It's a heavy handed piece that does not offer the viewer much to consider, but I enjoy being assaulted by a film once and awhile. This piece brings it and doesn't appologize. I liked this one a lot. Do NOT watch whilst eating pudding.

I was all ready to pan this episode, seeing that this 'Master' really doesn't have any horror films under his belt.. but this is easily the best episode of the season.<br /><br />The acting was good!! I don't know how he wrangled it, but we've got some real talent in this episode! And while you could see things coming from a mile away plot wise, at least it was entertaining and managed to keep me engaged for the full 56 mins, something that has been lacking up to this point in the series.<br /><br />I especially liked the bit at the end, not a twist per say, but just a funny little bit where he becomes, as ever, the hen-pecked hubby.<br /><br />Really good effort. Like I've said in other reviews- these are not true masters doing a lot of these episodes.. but they may someday end up being masters in the future.

Fans of the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" are going to love this MOH episode. Those who know the basic archetypal stories that most of the classic EC comics were based on, will recognize this one right off the bat.<br /><br />Underrated indie favorite Martin Donovan (also an excellent writer - co-author of the screenplays for APARTMENT ZERO and DEATH BECOMES HER) is the kind of guy whose everyman good looks can go either way. He could play a really nice if misunderstood guy-next-door, or he can play the same role with a creepy undertone of corrosive sleaziness. In the case of RIGHT TO DIE, he takes the latter approach, and it definitely works.<br /><br />Donovan is a doctor who has recently had an affair with his slutty office receptionist (Robin Sydney), much to the displeasure of his inconsolable, unforgiving spouse, Abbey (Julia Anderson). When the two of them get involved in a terrible car accident while returning from an unsuccessful weekend of "making up," and she's horribly burned in a fire, he's reluctant to pull the plug on her, not without some enthusiastic nudging from his even sleazier lawyer and best buddy (Corbin Bernsen, looking the worse for wear these days.) <br /><br />But Abbey's never been one to give up without a fight, and that's where the EC-theme of the episode comes in. Cuckolded husbands - and wives - have always been the genre's favorite subject matter for some spooky (and OOKY) supernatural shenanigans, and this case is definitely no exception. If anything, the ramped-up quotient of sex and gore must have Bill Gaines cackling with glee in his mausoleum somewhere.<br /><br />And that's not to mention that John Esposito's original script does give the adultery angle just a slight twist. You don't realize as you're watching that you only know half the story, until close to the end...(think WHAT LIES BENEATH with more guts and gazongas, and you're there.)<br /><br />Not a bad effort, but not the best of the lot, either. At least Rob Schmidt does display touches of flair here and there with the direction, especially in a scene that makes cell phone picture messaging into a truly horrifying experience indeed! As with most MOH episodes, this one is following a prevalent theme this season of flaying and dismemberment, so the extremely squeamish need not apply.

A man and his wife get in a horrible car accident. When the wife is left in a persistent vegetative state, the man must choose between pulling the plug and letting her live. The decision is made even harder when he realizes her ghost wants to extract revenge on him and those around him.<br /><br />This comes to us from director Rob Schmidt, who made "Wrong Turn" (a film I have not seen). With only one horror film under his belt, and not a particularly notorious one at that, I was a bit reluctant to watch this episode, expecting Schmidt to be a "Master of Horror" in only the most liberal sense. My apologies to him for my underestimation. As of episode 10 in a 13 episode season, this was actually the best one yet.<br /><br />The issue of the "right to die" is dealt with and covered in enough detail to be a solid plot device. However, this is only the foundation on which the story revolves. Once the horror elements show up, the film goes from "decent" to "spectacular". Great acting, great plot, great dialogue, great suspense. I was a little creeped out at times (which is good) and most of all: the gore is in extreme abundance! I read a review of this episode prior to watching it, where the reviewer said there is a strong hint of "Hellraiser" in this. Through the first part of the show, I had no idea what they were talking about. Then there is a bit later where some images do remind me of "Hellraiser 2". However, I in no way wish to say that this takes away from the film. I can see no other way to create the effect that was created, and in my opinion this looks remarkably better than "Hellraiser 2".<br /><br />Some plot twists show up later on, and might invite the viewer to give the film a second look. I didn't watch it a second time, but I think the beginning would make more sense if I had (not that it's confusing). The subplot with the dental hygienist is also nice, and I found myself going back and forth about whether I disliked the main character for his relationship with her or if I felt bad for him. He's somewhat of an anti-hero to the whole story, if you will. I feel inclined to cheer for him as the protagonist, but he's completely unlovable.<br /><br />While the Stuart Gordon episode may be better and I'm excited about the "Washingtonians" episode, I think I could safely bet that this is the key episode of the season and by far the saving grace of what was otherwise lackluster and routine. When legends like John Carpenter let me down (again) I get a bit worried about the genre's future, but then a fresh face like Rob Schmidt comes along and gives me hope. This one is a keeper, and please bring Schmidt back for season 3!

Well its about time. I had really given up any and all hope that there was going to be a standout episode among this season's entries. While there have still been far too many drab to hohum entries, at least this episode turned out well. Its rather funny that director Rob Schmidt who only has the not bad Wrong Turn to his credit and writer John Esposito whose only scripting chores to date have included Tale Of The Mummy and Graveyard Shift should be the ones to give us the best written and most thought provoking episode of the season. In "Right To Die" we are treated to the story of Cliff and Abbey. At the start of the episode the couple are having a conversation. Abbey has caught Cliff cheating and he is desperately trying to win her back. While they speak, they find themselves in a car accident where Cliff is left with only scratches and bruises, but Abbey is thrown from the car and catches on fire when a spark ignites and gasoline that had dripped onto her catches her on fire. And this is just the setup people. Once in the hospital Cliff must decide whether or not Abbey should live in this state with no skin and only nerve reflexes. There's also a side effect too. Every time she flatlines, Abbey goes a walking as a ghost and causes trouble for all sorts of people. Hands down this is the best episode of the season and certainly ranks as one of the top episodes ever. From the gruesome effects to the taut script which threw in a few twists I never saw coming and suspense so palpable you can almost touch it, Right To Die should have the right to go on living forever.

I'm not entirely sure Rob Schmidt qualifies as a "Master" in the genre of horror, since he previously just directed one horror film called "Wrong Turn" and that one was actually just was slightly above mediocre, but fact is that he made with "Right to Die" one of the best and creepiest episodes of the entire second season of the "Masters of Horror" franchise. There was a similar underdog story in season one, when William Malone made on of the best episodes with "The Fair Haired Child" even though his other long feature films "Fear Dot Com" and "House on Haunted Hill" sucked pretty badly.<br /><br />The story of "Right to Die" cleverly picks in on the nowadays piping hot social debate of euthanasia, but thankfully also features multiple old-fashioned horror themes like ghostly vengeance, murderous conspiracies, pitch black humor and comic book styled violence. Whilst driving home late one night and discussing the husband's continuous adultery, the Addison couple are involved in a terrible car accident. Cliff walks away from the wreck unharmed but his wife Abby is fully burned and needs to be kept alive artificially. Whilst Cliff and his sleazy attorney (Corbin Bernsen of "The Dentist") want to plug the plug on her and sue the car constructor, Abbey's mum sets up a giant media campaign to keep her daughter alive as a vegetable and blame everything on Cliff. Meanwhile Abbey's hateful spirit comes back for revenge and kills someone in Cliff's surrounding whenever she has a near fatal experience with the medical devices. After a few victims, Cliff realizes it might be safer for him to keep his wife alive if he wants to remain alive as well. "Right to Die" is a stupendous episode and exactly the type of stuff I always hoped to see from a TV-series concept like "Masters of Horror". It's violent and gory with a sick & twisted sense of humor and loads of sleaze sequences. The euthanasia theme and the whole obligatory media circus that surrounds it is processed into the script very well, yet without unnecessarily reverting to political standpoints or morality lessons. The atmosphere is suspenseful and the killing sequences are suitably nasty and unsettling. Actresses Julia Anderson and Robin Sydney both have pretty face and impressively voluptuous racks, which is always a welcome plus, and Corbin Bernsen is finally offered the chance again to depict a mean-spirited and egocentric bastard. Great "MoH" episode; definitely one of the highlights of both seasons.

This is one of the best episode from the second season of MOH, I think Mick Garris has a problem with women... He kill'em all, they are often the victims (Screwfly solution, Pro-life, Valerie on the stairs, I don't remember the Argento's episode in season 1, etc., obviously Imprint). I think he enjoys to watch women been burn, torture, mutilated and I don't know. Never least "Right to die" is one of the best, with good turns and graphic scenes and suspense (specially with the photos from the cell scene, wonderful). The acting is like the entire series, regular I could be worst like "Pro-life" or "We scream for Ice cream". Also I think the plot it could be made for a movie and not just for an episode. The ideology of the series is horrible, killing and terminating women, mutilating animals and on and on... the first season it was better than the second one with episodes like "Cigarrette burns" (The best of all), "Homecoming" (The most funny), "Imprint" (really shocking).

What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.<br /><br />Spoilers here: <br /><br />Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.<br /><br />End of Spoiler.<br /><br />As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.

Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...<br /><br />This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.<br /><br />Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...<br /><br />Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.<br /><br />Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach.

Why did it sound like the husband kept calling her Appy ? It ruined a great episode and so I can only give it a 6. Proper grammar and pronunciation are essential to a film.<br /><br />It was very Hellraiser what with all the skin ripping though I dunno how anyone can survive without skin the skin is a vital organ to the body the biggest organ actually and without we would die. The more a horror film is true the more creepy it can be and more entertaining.<br /><br />I do admit though that the stories from the great horror directors are very disappointing and very mediocre. <br /><br />6/10 come on Yankies get your English up to par !

In this first episode of Friends, we are introduced to the 6 main characters of the series: Monica Geller,Phoebe Buffay,Chandler Bing,Ross Geller, Joey Tribbiani and eventually Rachel Green .<br /><br />We discover that Rachel, a rich girl that is Monica's friend from high school times, left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar, since she discovered she didn't love him. She also decides to live with Monica and become independent from her father,getting a new job as a waitress in Central Perk.<br /><br />Ross, for the other hand,discovered his wife is a lesbian and lost her for Susan, her partner. (We see him moving to a new apartment during the episode)<br /><br />Monica, in this episode, makes out (and eventually sleeps) with Paul "the wine guy", who gave her the excuse of being impotent since he divorced his wife. But in reality, he was just deceiving her.<br /><br />Ps: I just loooove Joey's and Chandler's haircuts in this first season! =)

In the very first episode of Friends, which aired 22 Sept 1994 "The One Where Monica Gets A Roommate" there is a song playing as Rachel sits in the window towards the end of the show, the line that plays is: "If you ever need holding".... does anyone know the artist singing or the title of the song? It is seems as if it is a great song....I would love to get a copy of it. Thanks for the assistance. I am looking for the album/cd it is on so I can purchase it. <br /><br />I have the shows which are available for purchase and enjoy this show over and over again. It just seemed to be believable...thanks for the hours of entertainment you have provided over the years.

The pilot is extremely well done. It lays out how the characters bond in future episodes. I don't think anyone could have created a better pilot for this show. It displays remarkable creativity on the writers part. Although not everything was straightened out because it was the very first episode, a lot of events that happen in future seasons were demonstrated in the pilot. An example would be Ross and Rachels future relationship. Even though the nervousness of a first episode appeared, it was overcome by an amazing plot and outstanding cast choice.<br /><br />Bravo.<br /><br />A great start to an unbeatable comedy!

And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!

Here it is.. the first EVER episode of Friends, Where we get introduced to Control Freak Monica Gellar (Courtney Cox), Newly divorced Ross Gellar (David Schimmer), Hippy Pheobe Buffay (Lisa Kudrow), unknown actor and ladies man (Matt Le Blanc and very sarcastic Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry). This is how the scene starts off until we introduced to the 6th and final friend Spoilt kid Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston).<br /><br />The Episode is better than most people give credit for, like any new sitcom the first episode isn't always fantastic. The acting in this episode isn't great because the cast cannot identify and arnt really believable in their new characters (apart from Kudrow and Perry- who shine).<br /><br />Matt Le Blanc- Man, his acting was down right dreadful because until later, he gets more confident, but i think he tries to be funny but at most fails.<br /><br />David Schimmer- Why does he over pronounce EVERY word? he cannot speak normally! but he became one of the funniest characters in later seasons, but he isn't confident. and i cannot sympathise with him Jennifer Aniston- Looks hot, and does a good job as Rachel Green, but we only see the real Rachel later in the 1st season, Courtney Cox- Looks quite anorexic in this episode, its worrying, she looks totally different now, (more healthily), she acting is a little sketchy but everyones is in this 20 minute pilot! Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry- I'm doing these two together because their comic timing and acting quality was superb, and for Lisa this was one of her first roles and she is so natural as Pheobe (Pheebs) and Matthew Perry is just Matthew Perry playing himself basically! The episode quality does improve later,,, such as the Sets, they looks dark and creepy in this episode and makes them seem unfriendly, the acting is OK, the characters gain confidence with each new scene and i am proud this is the pilot! I hope we see the Friends reunite! cause they will always be there for us!

This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!

A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film. <br /><br />As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past. <br /><br />I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out.

This movie is the first of Miikes triad society trilogy, and the trilogy kicks of to a great start. The movies in the trilogy are only connected thematically, and these themes are actually apparent in all his films, if you look close enough. Shinjuku Triad Society is about a cop trying to prevent his kid brother from getting too involved with a rather extreme gang of outsiders, struggling their way to the top of Tokyos yakuza. The kid brother is a lawyer, and the triad gang is becoming increasingly in need of one, as the movie progresses. The movie takes place in a very harsh environment, and is therefore pretty violent and tough. Miike has done worse, but since this is a serious movie it hits you very hard. As usual there is also a lot of perverted sex, mostly homosexual in this one. The movie is in many ways a typical gangster movie, but with a great drive and true grittiness. If you've only seen Miikes far-out movies (Ichi the killer, Fudoh etc.) this is worth checking out since it is sort of a compromise between his aggressive over-the-top style displayed in those movies and his more serious side, as seen in the other films of the trilogy. And as always with Miike, there are at least two scenes in this that you'll NEVER forget (see it and figure out which ones for yourself).<br /><br />8/10

Shinjuku Triad Society, albeit from perfect, is a fiercely compelling film for what it tries to depict in its uber-conventional realm. It's a yakuza/triad picture, involving cops versus Japanese &/or Chinese gangsters (mostly Chinese, as the title suggests), but already even in his first technical 'debut', Takashi Miike is already establishing many aspects to films that he would make from here-on in. Social issues like black market trading of precious goods, in this case human organs usually from children; nostalgia for childhood and one's roots, which was especially prevalent in Dead or Alive 2; thumbing-of-the-nose at taboos like gay sex and (satirical) rape/violence towards women; blood-curdling violence. It's certainly not as surreal as some of Miike's most recent films, but this is expected as he's trying out things that he's just starting to learn, following a track record of straight to video programmers. It's got all of those qualities, and it's also, like the films that would follow from it, equally savage and heartfelt, crazy (in spots) and sardonic in its drama, and solid for genre fans.<br /><br />The story concerns two brothers, one a Chinese orphan raised in Japan, Tatsuhito Kiriya (Kippei Shiina, pretty decent as a Eastwood-esquire anti-hero/hero), who's become a detective, and another, who's become a gangster, or a would-be one. The main arch likely takeover gang comes from Wang (a definite pun on what the gang represents during its spare-time, played by Tomorowo Taguchi as a typical wacko with real terror in his eyes), and his partner Karino (Takeshi Caesar, who's threatening even when just repeating a commandment over and over to a woman who's just had her eye plugged out following a sour deal), who are the ruthless kind to pop up almost organically in a Miike movie. There's some intrigue involving the organ-trading scheme with the gangsters, which Kiriya almost becomes a victim of, and the gang's penchant for gay sex- at least with one little puppet of sorts who does whatever the main gangsters want. It all leads up to vengeance and redemption, qualities that Miike and his writer are trying to emulate from Shakespeare (hence the Macbeth bit with Wang washing his bloody hangs over and over after some gay sex saying "it won't come off").<br /><br />If it doesn't add up to the same emotional level of impact that a great Shakespeare play would have, it's par for the course of a film like this. Miike's goals are met, though just met, in his low-scale ambitions: a gangster picture with some added levels of harsh familial trouble (the main tension between the brothers comes out of profession and duty to parents), notes on the crueler aspects of underworld crime, and what the realm of unrepentant sex, with both sexes, brings out psychologically in the characters. At the same time, Shinjuku Triad Society also contains more than a few moments of classic biting black-comedy from the Miike oeuvre. Some of it just has to be taken with a grain of salt for what the director does in his outrageousness, like the bit at the beginning with the chair smashing over the face, or the randomness of the "interrogation" as it goes into a very twisted area. There's even a laugh-out-loud line from the young sex-slave after finishing an act on one of the bosses: "Thank you, Mr. Weeny-Burger." Miike and his writer don't have enough here to make the film a full-on dark comedy like Ichi or, of course, Visitor Q, but there's enough to bring some appropriate levity to the darker aspects to the story and characters.<br /><br />As the first entry of the "Black Society" trilogy, as it's called, I was quite impressed, and it's a fine quasi-calling card from one of the craziest new artists in contemporary cinema.

Shinjuku Triad Society: Chinese Mafia Wars is unlikely to get distribution in the West outside film festivals. Why? Could your censors stomach a film where policemen anally rape male and female suspects to get them to talk (and the victims enjoy it) or see an old lady have her eye torn out of her skull? These are just a few of the shocks in store for viewers of this ultraviolent cops and gangsters story. It makes Clockwork Orange which was banned for years in the UK look like a Disney cartoon.<br /><br />Should you see this film? YES It is fantastic and essential viewing for fans of Asian cinema. The shocking moments are there to illustrate what goers on in the world of these characters. If you like this make sure you catch Dead or Alive which is very similar (barring the insane ending in DOA of course). Great for Japan that they have a talent like Miike working at the same time as Takeshi Kitano. The best chance of seeing this film outside a Takashi Miike retrospective at a film festival is on DVD. If I haven't put you off try hunting for a Hong Kong version on the web as I'm sure it will come out in that country.

I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one.

While not as wild and way out as some of Takashi Miike's later films this is a very good crime drama. <br /><br />The basic story is the story of a cop of Japanese cop with Chinese parents trying to take down an up and coming Chinese mobster. Complicating things is that his younger brother is acting as the lawyer for the villain and his gang. The film is actually much more complicated than that with several complications which both keep things interesting and distract things from the central narrative thrust. Its this complication and loss of way about an hour into the film that makes this less than a great film.(It is a very very good one) This is definitely worth seeing especially if you don't mind a no frantic pace.<br /><br />A word of warning, the violence when it happens is explosive and nasty. There are also semi-graphic depictions of gay sex. If thats not your cup of tea, proceed with caution.<br /><br />7 or 8 out of 10.

The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.<br /><br />An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.<br /><br />What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

Anyone new to the incredibly prolific Takashi Miike's work might want to think twice about making this startling film their first experience of this truly maverick director. In keeping with Miike's working practice of taking any work that comes his way and then grafting his own sensibilities onto the script, this is at heart a fairly basic yakuza thriller, with a morally ambiguous cop chasing a gang which his lawyer brother has fallen in with. What takes the movie out of the realms of the same-old same-old however, is the utterly unflinching attitude so some of the most sudden and horrific violence seen in today's cinema. And this isn't that nice cool, clean violence so beloved of US cinema - this stuff is nasty, painful and HURTS! That said, the pace is breakneck, the characters are unusual without being just being burdened with stock eccentricities, Miike's sense of humour reveals itself and the most unexpected moments, and his camera is never quite where you expect it to be, making it hard to look away from the screen, whatever he might be showing you! It doesn't have the "Ohmigod" ending of "Dead Or Alive," but if you're not squeamish, now's the time to get on board the Miike bandwagon before he ends up on some Hollywood studio's "new John Woo" shopping list...

I really like Miikes movies about Yakuza, this one I saw about 2 years ago and it really fu**ed my head. Never before seen such a sick and twisted thing. The Story is good and the actors do their thing very well. I haven't seen the UK or Japan version, but I have to say that I believe that the German DVD is a bit censored. If you haven't seen the movie already and live in Germany maybe you better look out for a DVD from the Nederlands or Austria. The I-ON DVD contains a lot of very hard and nasty scenes, but at the showdown I felt that something was missing, about one or two very short scenes.<br /><br />All in all a good perverted movie with crazy characters and a high level of violence, that's what I like Miike for!!

The story of a drifter, his sheep ranch boss, and the boss's daughter is not for all tastes, but it's still very intriguing. It takes place in the beautiful country of New Zealand, amongst the scenery we've come to know so well through other films from this region.<br /><br />This movie was the first time I had ever seen the excellent Mary Regan, and I've been a fan of hers ever since. The cast also contains Bruno Lawrence, who is probably best remembered by American audiences from the film "Smash Palace". Terence Cooper takes a turn as the ranch owner who pays a little too much of the wrong sort of attention to his daughter (Regan). <br /><br />Sharply acted, with unforgettably shattering performances from all of its leads. I first saw this movie in extremely edited form on late night television here in America, but believe you me, the unexpurgated version is not to be missed.

An excellent and accurate film... McGovern takes great pains to research and document his writing and it pays off. He is not afraid to tell the truth, even though it might draw unfavourable reviews and comments from some who like stories to be clean and sweet and glossy.<br /><br />Once again, McGovern brings in Christopher Eccleston, though not in as high a profile a role as he played in Hillsborough. I found this movie as accurate, well acted and well presented as Hillsborough and I applaud McGovern for his poignant unapologetic writing. Well done and my hat is off to the writer, the actors, the production crew. A great film!

This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.<br /><br />The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.<br /><br />Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is.

"The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr." is the definitive documentary on the life of the man who brought us such movies as "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster", and, of course, "Plan 9 from Outer Space". This exquisite film far exceeds where other documentaries, such as "Look Back in Angora" and "The Plan 9 Companion", failed. It rounds up his surviving entourage, many of whom have passed away since filming, and gives an honest examination of Ed Wood and his work. Nostalgic in the fact that it looks back at the darker corner of yesteryear Hollywood, sentimental in its treatment of the director (down to the haunting music), this documentary is an absolute must-see for anyone who loves the director who so failed in his day. The entire two hours of the film lovingly and retrospectively pieces together Ed's life and untimely death for the viewer. Best watched at 3 am while wearing an angora sweater.

I loved this film. Not being a swooning Ed Wood Jr. fan, I prefer to appreciate his "boundless enthusiasm" and acknowledge his shortcomings. His movies are fun, but his personal story is one racked with pain. I hoped, and was delighted to find, that this film would be about understanding his turbulent life, rather than simply heaping him with posthumous praise. From beginning to end, this film evolves from a documentary into a mythology, leaving the cast and the viewer unexpectedly connected to each other and to Ed Wood Jr.<br /><br />What we get are people who knew Ed Wood the best talking about him from all perspectives, positive and negative, and showing us their character as much as Ed's. We get insight into Ed's personal and professional life: from his romances, to his drinking, to his sexuality, to his friends, to his enemies, and even to his film making.<br /><br />The film itself is shot in a low-budget way that seems done out of respect for Ed, as if using the techniques of most theatrically released movies from 1996 would be disrespectful (sort of like wearing a nicer suit than the President). The set designer uses a sense of humor and also a great deal of insight when matching each cast member with their background.<br /><br />Fans will be excited to hear personal testimony regarding Ed Wood controversies, and new comers will be amazed that this man was real. The DVD is full of impossible to find gems ("Crossroads of Lorado" and photo galleries), but the real treasure of this film is the surprisingly engaging and interconnected story.<br /><br />Ed Wood had a habit of defining people through their association with him (for better or worse), to the point where one woman will go down in history as "Swimming Pool Owner" for once letting him and his friends be baptized in her pool. This ability to define a person's legacy comes through universally, as the most amazing effect of the film is to not only give a well rounded idea of the man that was Ed Wood Jr., but also to give a comprehensive view of the community that he created. Somehow, without ever having more that one cast member being interviewed on screen at a time, the connection that Ed Wood created amongst the various people in his life becomes clear, and the viewer is left with great sense of involvement.<br /><br />Even the title hints at the B-list horror genre, but by the end, we see that even this is a kindness. What begins as unrelated stories by random people ends with the conclusion that all of the cast will be forever weaved into an unpredictably cohesive fabric that history will bring into haunting unity with Wood's legend.<br /><br />In many ways a living contradiction, Ed Wood Jr. could not be condensed to a single viewpoint. This collaborative effort is the closest to knowing him that we can ever get. Being itself a juxtaposition of themes, it is at once respectful, provocative, thoughtful, gripping, fun, sad, kind, and fulfilling.

I originally caught this back in 1996 in its one week run at a movie theatre. I was under impressed by it and my feelings haven't much changed.<br /><br />Documentary about the infamous Edward D. Wood Jr. covering his life and movies. There are interviews with people who worked with him or knew him. They include: Vampira, Dolores Fuller, Bela Lugosi Jr., Loretta King, Gregory Walcott and Paul Marco. Interviews are mixed with clips from the movies or some bizarre recreations. It is interesting (somewhat) but was this really needed? I've seen all of Wood's films and they're just terrible. Wood had ambitions but not a bit of talent to carry them out. I wouldn't say he was the worst director ever but he's down there. Do we really need a docu on a very mediocre film maker? I do like the fact that they didn't try to make Wood out to be some sort of saint. More than a few of those interviewed (especially Lugosi Jr.) pretty much hated the man and it comes through loud and clear. Also they totally ignore his films in the adult film industry in the 1960s and 70s. Still it's of interest if you're a Wood fan. The best interviews are with Vampira (who tears Wood apart) and Dolores Fuller (a long time girlfriend).

When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.<br /><br />The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.<br /><br />As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.

An unqualified "10." The level of writing and acting in this Australian movie is reminiscent of the very best of "old" Hollywood. Sam Neill and Meryl Streep are very good together. Neill matches Streep line for line, and take for take -- it is one of the best showcases yet of his prodigious acting talent and he is at his sexy and gorgeous best, notwithstanding the intensity of his role. This engrossing film is a treat for any movie fan who loves a gripping courtroom drama, portrayed in the most human but unsentimental terms. The movie -- which won several top awards in Australia -- boasts not only a superlative cast and director, but wonderful and authentic Australian locales. It proves that people are the same the world over. And, after all these years, people still delight in repeating the famous Streep line, accent and all: "A dingo ate moy baby!" Including that imp "Elaine Benis" on "Seinfeld."

This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.<br /><br />The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.<br /><br />I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.<br /><br />8/10

Lindy (Meryl Streep) and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) have just welcomed a baby girl, Azaria. As Seventh Day Adventists, they live their beliefs every day and soon have Azaria dedicated to God at their church, with their two older boys looking on. Michael gets a vacation and the family decides to head to Ayer's Rock, one of the most impressive tourist spots in all of Australia. Not being wealthy, the family camps near the site. After a wonderful first day, Lindy puts baby Azaria to sleep in one of the tents. Suddenly, she hears Azaria crying. As Lindy rushes to the tent, a dingo dog is just exiting, shaking his head. The baby is gone and soon, so is the dingo. Although the entire camp looks for the baby, she is not found. Concluding she is dead and that the dingo made off with their beloved child, the Chamberlains struggle to accept God's decision and go on with their lives. But, unfortunately, the story gets sensational coverage in the news media and soon the tale is circulated that Lindy murdered the baby. She is subsequently arrested and put on trial. How could this happen? This is a great depiction of real events that shows how "mob rule" is not a figment of the imagination. The entire country turns against the Chamberlains, in part because they are seen as odd. Streep gives her best performance ever as the complex Lindy, whose own strong-willed demeanor works against her every step of the way. Neill, likewise, does a wonderful job as the hesitant and confused Michael. The cast is one of the largest ever, with depictions of folks around the country getting their digs into Lindy's case. The costumes, scenery, script, direction and production are all top of the line. If you have never seen or heard of this film, remedy that straight away. It is not a far cry from reality to say that this "Cry" should be seen by all who care about film and about the misused power of the media.

Spoilers Following: I picked up the book "Evil Angels" when it first came out knowing nothing of the case. Just to give the press and the Austrialian people a break here, I was quite far into it before I began to question the Chamberlain's guilt. The author obviously intended the reader to understand why the public jumped to the conclusions they did. John Bryson told the story just as it was presented to the jurors (and picked up by the press) of the arterial spray, the actelone (??) plates, Dr. James Cameron's certainty that the collar was cut with scissors, that a baby could not be taken whole from her clothes with the buttons still done up, bloody hand print, etc. all quite convincingly. After all, these were experts in their fields who were testifying with no apparent reason to lie, and the fact that the evidence was completely wrong wasn't apparent to me at all. It was also highly technical evidence, difficult for a layman to understand. To this point, beyond some hearsay testimony in the trials, hardly anyone had ever heard of a dingo attacking a human; people didn't believe it was possible. The public was suspicious of the Seventh Day Adventists, whose origins made them appear to be a cult, and all sorts of wild beliefs about them contributed to the appearance of guilt. Were it not for dedicated, selfless lawyers who worked relentlessly to investigate and counter the trial testimony, finding Azaria's clothes later would not have been enough to get Lindy out of jail. The book shook me for that reason, and I've been reluctant to come to a conclusion about anyone's guilt ever since (excepting OJ of course). I was thrilled that a movie was going to be made about the case and don't think it could have been done better. I've always liked Sam, who I could identify with completely, and Meryl was perfect as always. Beautiful photography, haunting music. I think it's not only a very good, but a very important, movie. Too bad it didn't receive more publicity at the time it was released.

Meryl Streep is excellent in her nuanced and stoic performance as the infamous Lindy Chamberlain who was accused and tried for allegedly killing her own baby Azaria Chamberlain and using her alibi of ravenous dingoes as her defense. Based on the book "Evil Angels" and titled so in its Australian release, A CRY IN THE DARK is an ugly film to watch. It presents a scenario that's all too real for us in America: the witch-hunt against a person deemed an easy target.<br /><br />Lindy Chamberlain was this woman. Being someone who spoke her mind, someone who didn't play the sympathy card, and someone who was just tough enough to move on with her life despite her horrific ordeal, she was labeled as suspect and hated beyond comprehension even when it was clear she didn't kill her own child. The media began a tightening noose and a progressive invasion of privacy that soon had the entire nation glued to their sets as they eviscerated this family piece by piece. And through it all, Lindy remained as stoic as ever, even when her husband Michael was falling apart.<br /><br />This stance, of course, is the power of strength, as unsympathetic as it may look like, and people happen to react strongly to that. They want to see a distressed mother cry and weep and occasionally faint at every turn, not sit there and look blank. People don't understand that not everyone grieves the same way and when someone decides to stand strong they begin speculations. Meryl Streep embodies this tainted woman to the hilt and in doing so creates a cold, but not unfeeling woman, one that stood by her convictions even if they cost her liberty. Because of her, Sam Neill is allowed to have his character slowly dissolve into despair -- someone has to, or the Chamberlains would be too detached, and no one wants to see that. Except the monster that has at the time of this writing become the news-media. They'll always eat train wrecks up and feed the mangled manure to the uninformed public.

Once you pick your jaw up from off the floor from the realization that they... somehow... managed to put this thing together so fast that it was released the same year the case ended, you'll find that it's not half bad. The plot is engaging and interesting, and the pacing is fast, with this covering many situations, and thus often jumping swiftly on to the next one after a line or two has been spoken. Where this really stands out is the acting. The performances are excellent. Neill and Streep are both impeccable. It's also cool to hear so much Australian spoken in a Hollywood film, and even those who don't come naturally to it at least attempt an accent. The cinematography and editing are nice enough, but they don't really go beyond the standard stuff. This movie's story is compelling and the fact that it is authentic just makes it all the more chilling. While I have not read the novel or heard of what happened outside of this picture, I understand that it is quite close to the truth. There is some moderate to strong language and disturbing content in this. It is, at times, a downright great courtroom drama. I recommend this to any fellow fan of such. 7/10

This is a docudrama story on the Lindy Chamberlain case and a look at it's impact on Australian society. It especially looks at the problem of innuendo, gossip and expectation when dealing with real-life dramas.<br /><br />One issue the story deals with is the way it is expected people will all give the same emotional response to similar situations. Not everyone goes into wild melodramatic hysterics to every major crisis. Just because the characters in the movies and on TV act in a certain way is no reason to expect real people to do so. This is especially apt for journalists and news editors who appear to be looking for the the big sob scene that will pull the ratings. It's an issue that has to be constantly addressed.<br /><br />The leads play the characters with depth, personality and sensitivity. And they are ably supported by a large cast all playing based-on-fact individuals. Some viewers may be surprised to learn that many of the supporting cast in this story are people better known in Australia as comic actors. It re-enforces my idea that comic actors make some of the best supports in dramas because with comedy they know how to establish quick impressions of individuals.<br /><br />(Spoiler warning!)<br /><br />I have to say something very personal here; in that I am actually an ex-Adventist who was a practicing member in Australia at the time this incident occurred; so I have a slightly different impression of the story than most. I think it is handled with amazing creativity and personality, and emotional heart. I think the best scene is the one where the couple are hounded by the new choppers. It captured the themes of the story brilliantly.<br /><br />I once heard Fred Schepsi say in an interview that he told the actors to "play the best case for their character they could". While this is especially apt for this story, I think it is also a general principle that should apply to all acting as well.

Meryl Streep is such a genius. Well, at least as an actress. I know she's been made fun of for doing a lot of roles with accents, but she nails the accent every time. Her performance as Lindy Chamberlain was inspiring. Mrs. Chamberlain, as portrayed here, was not particularly likable, nor all that smart. But that just makes Streep's work all the more remarkable. I think she is worth all 10 or so of her Oscar nominations. About the film, well, there were a couple of interesting things. I don't know much about Australia, but the theme of religious bigotry among the general public played a big part in the story. I had largely missed this when I first saw the film some years ago, but it came through loud and clear yesterday. And it seems the Australian press is just as accomplished at misery-inducing pursuit and overkill as their American colleagues. A pretty good film. A bit different. Grade: B

I remember seeing this movie shown several years ago on the Lifetime TV network and thought it was an interesting story. Several years later I see it again and fall head over heels in love with this movie. The story behind the movie is fascinating in and of itself. The cast just makes it that much more appealing. Meryl Streep is definitely at the top of her game in this picture. She nails Mrs. Chamberlain's mannerisms, the accent, and even look. She shows the pain, hurt, surprise, and anger that Lindy had to endure, and in the process it's hard to remember that it ISN'T Lindy. In my opinion, this performance of Meryl's was better than her Oscar-winning turn in "Sophie's Choice", and should have garnered her her third Oscar. Sam Neill is perfect as Michael Chamberlain, and for some surprising reason, wasn't recognized by the Academy with at least a nomination. In all, this movie only receive ONE Oscar nod (Streep's for Best Actress.) However, it did receive several Australian Oscars and nominations.<br /><br />Definitely a top-rate movie: it tells a great story and you get great performances from the entire cast.

I found it hard to like anyone in this film. The central characters, Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, whose daughter disappears during a night out in the Australian outback, are not bad people, but then surely not all, or even most, of the scores of people we see throughout this movie would be bad if we knew them better. But though we are as sure as the film wants us to be of the guilt or innocence of the Chamberlains from the start of their life's tragic disarray, the film takes on a more or less sociological perspective pertaining to gossip, news media, crowds, mobs and assumptions. It's not a movie about the degenerate society of Australia in particular; it's merely an account of a true story that happened there. Society en masse is much less evolved than the individual feels ensured that we are.<br /><br />When a warden insists upon killing all of an aborigine's dogs because of the unverified action of a single wild dog, when a randomly ruined life spins even further out of control owing to the majority of magazines, newspapers and TV programs distorts the tragic truth to a level of drama that provokes its consumers into a frenzy, there is no sign of empathy or even any kind of looking outside of one's own unaware perceptions, influenced left and right by the vigorous hearsay and vibes of those who surround one's life. The reason I appreciate the film is because it turns the focus inside out, from the victims to the masses.<br /><br />The evidence against Lindy Chamberlain aside, suspicion was jet-fueled mostly by a virtue of hers. To the public eye, she did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death of her baby daughter. Why was she able to keep her cool, even a sort of aloofness let alone holding her head up, for TV and the press? How much of the downward spiral could've been prevented had she behaved more to the public's liking in the media? Meryl Streep, one of, if not the, greatest actress working today, may not give a performance that particularly stands out, and frankly neither does any other actor, or department of film-making. But she, and the screenwriters, do understand Lindy. What is infuriating is that it's not that difficult. Apparently, she was not naturally prone to showing emotion in public in any case. Whether or not she is approachable as a lovable character in the immediate sense, we are naturally prone to sympathize with her situation.<br /><br />Whether or not her performance is as immediately gratifying as Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Angels In America or other such work, it is a triumph. It is difficult enrapture an audience when you purposely deny them insights into yourself. She frustrates us because we don't know what she's thinking or feeling. It took me awhile to feel endeared toward her, but this is the movie's way of suggesting the reaction of the public's attention.<br /><br />She is married to a pastor, and they both practice a religion that is in a small minority and thus misinterpreted by most. Initially, they react to their loss as if to be reconciling themselves to God's will, kick-starting a rumor mill generating the notion that their daughter's death was some sort of ritual killing on their part. Whatever happened to the little girl, her parents were part of a margin with whom most of the media's intake didn't immediately identify, so the first inclination was to go after them like a pack of hungry...well...<br /><br />Meryl Streep and Sam Neill are constantly on screen, but the Australian public plays the real leads here. Like punctuation for each plot advance, director Fred Schepisi cuts away from restaurant to tennis court to dinner party to saloon to office, where the public tries Lindy and gets carried away into their own passionate projections.<br /><br />This Golan-Globus docudrama is not particularly memorable. The setting's atmosphere doesn't give a pleasurable enough compensation for the fact that no performance or facet of production stands out. But it is very successful as an indictment of the collective conscious of the public.

In August 1980 the disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain and the pursuant trial of her parents Lindy and Michael for the alleged murder of the child caused an uproar across what was then a very angry nation. The media and the public had already tried and convicted the accused couple and were baying for blood. What followed was a gross miscarriage of justice.<br /><br />Michael and Lindy Chamberlain claimed that while camping near Ayers Rock, central Australia, that a dingo had taken their ten week old daughter from their tent as they were preparing to eat in the barbecue area. No-one believed them. Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael as an accessory after the fact. The whole country was abuzz with whispers of a ritual killing. The Chamberlain's trial was over before it began.<br /><br />Lindy never proved her innocence, so she was found guilty. There was never enough evidence to convict her, yet the jury was swayed by public and media pressure. How could we as a nation even sit in judgement? From where we are, how could we possibly presume to know? Unless there was absolute proof, and no reasonable doubt whatsoever, the Chamberlains should have been acquitted.<br /><br />Fred Schepisi's film unequivocally and whole heartedly supports the argument of John Bryson's novel, that the Chamberlains were completely innocent of the charges laid against them. That in fact a dingo did take baby Azaria on that fateful night at Ayers Rock.<br /><br />Schepisi has brilliantly captured the mood of a blood thirsty nation, hell bent on 'the truth' being brought to light. He shows Australia in a rather unbecoming light as a people who were totally obsessed with seeing the Chamberlains pay! His screenplay, co-written with Robert Caswell, vigorously stirs the emotions and will most certainly find the audience saddened and angered at the travesty of justice which occurred.<br /><br />The outstanding Meryl Streep gives an incredible performance as the woman accused of the most dreadful of acts. She brings to life most convincingly the tough little Aussie who was ready to stand up to the allegations and set the world straight. Even her accent is almost, but not quite, spot on. A very good effort by the master of that trade. Sam Neill is every bit as good as Streep as the at first faithful but then disillusioned Michael who cannot comprehend why their world is falling apart, and he starts to question his Christianity. His, as was Streep's, is a showing of great emotional strength that will move you profoundly. The entire support cast are also excellent, with some of Australia's finest actors and actresses playing a part.<br /><br />Technically the film is brilliant too, with Director of Photography Ian Baker capturing this great land with splendour (especially the Rock). Editor Jill Bilcock keeps the whole movie tense and very emotionally charged, while Bruce Smeaton provides a telling score.<br /><br />For all Aussies this is a must see, a shocking look in the mirror if you will, at what we as a country did to a family who just wanted justice to be served, and the truth to be known. As Michael Chamberlain said : "I don't think anybody really understands what innocence means.....to innocent people."<br /><br />Saturday, May 20, 1995 - Video<br /><br />Even on return viewings Fred Schepisi's account of the travesty of justice that befell the Chamberlains, who lost baby Azaria at Ayres rock in 1980, is still emotionally powerful and honestly moving.<br /><br />Schepisi and Robert Caswell have expertly transferred John Bryson's novel to the screen, telling with simplicity the horrifying story of a vacation gone terribly wrong for Michael and Lindy Chamberlain, whose new born daughter Azaria was taken form the family tent by a dingo just moments after being put down.<br /><br />Amid media speculation and vicious public rumour Lindy was charged with the murder of her baby, and Michael was charged as an accessory after the fact. What followed was little more than trial by media, and with the Australian people determined she be put away, Lindy was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour, even though the prosecution could present no motive and little other than circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />Meryl Streep is in top form as the accused woman who battles Australia head on to prove her innocence. She is truly awesome, and the only thing that fails her is a true blue Aussie accent, though she does her level best to sound ocker. You might wonder why a top Australian actress wasn't cast in the role, but star power is probably the answer. Alongside Meryl is an equally impressive Sam Neill, outstanding as the husband who sees his world falling apart before his eyes, while he feels powerless to do anything about it. A strong Aussie cast lend compelling support.<br /><br />Editing from Jill Bilcock is very timely, Ian Baker's cinematography of the rock and other rugged locations is visually brilliant and Bruce Smeaton's music is perfect for the part. Truly a must for all conscientious Australians.<br /><br />Sunday, June 15, 1996 - Video

Fascinating movie, based on a true story, about an Australian woman, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) accused of killing her baby daughter. She insists that a dingo took her baby, but the story is highly suspicious. The film is actually about the media circus that took place around the case, the way Australians interpreted what was presented in the media, and the lynch mob mentality that ultimately led to the woman's conviction, based on barely any hard evidence. I love films that question the media, and also films that take a hard look on how people are railroaded by the justice system. I've always thought that juries ought to be showed 12 Angry Men before they go through with their duties. It's not, as has often been said, a liberal movie, but a clinical look at how we as human beings interpret events based so much on our prejudices and a desire for revenge. A Cry in the Dark is likewise clinical. Schepisi is careful not to make the film at all melodramatic. Some may find the film boring or dry, but I found it engaging.

A CRY IN THE DARK <br /><br />A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.<br /><br />Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.<br /><br />The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.<br /><br />While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.<br /><br />The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.<br /><br />The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.<br /><br />The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.<br /><br />In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.<br /><br />More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.<br /><br />... A ...

This review contains spoilers for those who are not aware of the details of the true story on which this movie is based.<br /><br />The right to be presumed "Innocent until proven guilty" is a basic entitlement of anyone in a civilised society; but according to Fred Schepisi's partisan but sadly convincing story of a famous Australian murder trial, it was not granted to Lindy Chamberlain, accused of killing her baby. The story suggesting her innocence was unlikely (a dingo was alleged to have taken it), but those implying her guilt even more so, and there was no solid evidence against her. But the Australian public was transfixed by the possibility of her guilt, and the deeply religious Chamberlains appeared creepy when appearing in the media (and the media themselves, of course, were anything but innocent in this process). So although cleared by an initial inquest, they were later prosecuted and convicted. Although Chamberlain was eventually released, this shamefully only followed the discovery of new evidence "proving" their innocence, something no defendants should have to produce.<br /><br />'A Cry in the Dark' is well acted throughout, especially by Meryl Streep, who puts on a convincing Australian accent (at least to this Pom's ears) and manages keep Lindy sympathetic (to us) while still conveying how she managed to become a national hate figure. The scenes where she actually gets imprisoned are simple but heartbreaking, because we believe in the characters as real. <br /><br />Regardless of the accuracy of its portrayal of this story (something I can't comment on), the wider theme of this film will ring horribly true to anyone with a passing knowledge of the British popular press and its ruthless habit of appealing directly to their readership's least charitable instincts. No legal system will ever be perfect; but the current cry against asylum seekers in contemporary British tabloids comes from exactly the same pit of evil as the voices that put Lindy Chamberlain away. I'm not a religious man, but the Bible still contains some killer lines (if you'll excuse the pun). "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them.

Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.<br /><br />A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.<br /><br />Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.<br /><br />This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.<br /><br />Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.<br /><br />You will remember this movie for many years.<br /><br />See it!

When the Chamberlain family is camping near Ayers Rock, Australia, Lindy Chamberlain (Meryl Streep) sees her baby being dragged out of their tent by a dingo and then begins an ordeal that no one should have to experience. For it seems like the dingo story is not believed by the public or the press, and the whole thing turns into a circus. Lindy doesn't help matters either because she won't play to the jury or courtroom, she's only herself, and she's a tough nut to crack, so of course everyone thinks she's guilty because there's a piece of evidence that hasn't come to light. Sam Neill is excellent as Michael Chamberlain, a Seventh-Day adventist pastor, who has doubts about his faith and perhaps about his wife. It's good (or bad) to see that people are just as prejudiced and stupid elsewhere as they are in the States too, because the Australian public doesn't believe the story and the media only fans the flames. Eventually, Lindy is found guilty and sent to prison for a life of hard labor, but years later, a missing piece of evidence shows up and she's freed, but not until after the family's life is basically ruined. A heart-breaking story, very well done, a bit long but well worth seeing. 8 out of 10.

I believe they were telling the truth the whole time..U cant trust anything in the wild... They family went through hell.Those poor boys too young to understand what was going on around them. But still having to deal with the rumours. As well as dealing with the lose of their little sister. I cant believe this case went on for so long.seems like the jury couldn't see the truth, even if it bit them on the ass.I feel for this family, and if i could let them know i hate what has happened to them, i would.I have no idea what they went through, i cant even imagine it. After watching this movie, i was in tears, and had to check on my little girl in bed...I think everyone should watch this.

This is one of those movies that made me feel strongly for the need of making movies at all. Generally speaking, I am a fan of movies based on worthy true stories. And this one is GREAT! Besides Meryl's performance which has gained a lot of recognition and praise, the movie's greatest asset is the story it is based on. The riveting tale of a couple who suffer social and legal torture, after having undergone enormous emotional pain at the unexpected and brutal death of their infant child is really an eye-opening fable that exposes the inhumane side of fellow humans, and uncovers the barbarism of a very refined and lawful society. It is interesting to see how people who consider themselves as kind and intelligent people (the emotional jury ladies in the movie for example) are in reality nothing more than selfish dupes who would, for their dogmatic beliefs and prejudices, shut their brains to any deliberation and contemplation even in the light of all facts pointing very clearly against their opinions. The other face of the so-called "civilized" society that the movie exposes is the apathy to the pain of fellow human beings (needless to say, this is very general, even though this specific tale unfolds in Australia), that goes as far as becoming a true cruelty. Must see if you are willing to take something serious and perhaps thought-provoking.

This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.

Delightful minor film, juggling comedy and detective, romance and drama genres as nimbly as Lt Kenny Williams (Melvyn Douglas) balances his devotion to his girl Maxine Carroll (Joan Blondell) and his duty to the force as an ace detective.<br /><br />This hodge-podge may not appeal to all viewers today, but in its day, it had something to offer every member of the movie-going family, and the resolution to the rather tired feeling-versus-duty plot is original and refreshing, and well worth the wait. <br /><br />"The Amazing Mr. Williams" contains what must be among the most outrageous blind dates in film history, and its bright comic repartee sparkles. Ludicrously frocked, Melvyn Douglas delivers some of the best lines: "I'd walk down Main Street in a Turkish towel before I'd let any woman control my life!" And the effervescent Joan Blondell lets her barbs fly with typical aplomb: "Good grief! You look like my Aunt Nellie!' <br /><br />The crime-solving here is standard fare, although a fine cast of character actors helps bring the material to life. <br /><br />From today's vantage point, "The Amazing Mr. Williams" is perhaps most interesting for its insightful commentary on gender as a socially defined construct, all the more malleable for its seemingly rigid boundaries. While much of the gender commentary takes place in a superficial battle of the sexes, at times it is both subtle and penetrating, playing out not only in some of the finer details of the film, but in the battle of genres that reaches its culmination in the final scene.

What was there about 1939 that helped produce so many excellent Hollywood films? Well, whatever it was, the magic may also be found in this Columbia picture. It's a long forgotten screwball comedy that Turner Classic Movies has begun to show. (Maltin's movie book does not contain it.) In nearly every department, Amazing Mr. Williams is a jewel.<br /><br />It's the story of a first-rate police detective who can never find the time to marry his intended. As the wedding bells are about to ring, he gets called to the scene of a murder. The lady in question has to learn the hard way not only to enjoy the pursuit of criminals but to belong to the police force. There are a lot of laughs in the process.<br /><br />Melvyn Douglas proved again that he had few peers in light comedy. Joan Blondell was at the peak of her career and is a delight. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are hilarious.<br /><br />The film goes on a bit too long, but who cares? The screwball comedies are always able to entertain, and this film belongs right in there with the best.

The only other review of this movie as of this date really trashes the stars and the movie itself. I usually like to read the user comments to give me an idea of what to expect from a movie I don't know much about. It's unfortunate when there aren't many comments for a certain tile, because when there is only one review and it unreasonably trashes the movie and cast, you don't get an idea of what to expect. I read the review before watching this title and I don't know where all the venom for this movie and the stars came from. Douglas and Blondell were both very talented and attractive people who usually delivered, even when the material was not the greatest. I found the movie and the performances fun and enjoyable. It isn't one of the great all-time classics, but a pleasant and funny diversion-much more than you can hope for in most newer movies. If you are a fan of these stars, you will not be disappointed.

Melvyn Douglas and Joan Blondell co-star in "The Amazing Mr. Williams," a 1939 mystery/comedy that's quite good, although forgotten, probably due to the number of incredible films that came out in 1939.<br /><br />Douglas plays a talented police detective married to his job, while his girlfriend waits for a wedding that is constantly postponed. What happens in this film is no exception - he's called to a murder scene just as he's about to walk down the aisle yet again.<br /><br />Both stars were excellent at comedy, worked together well (and often), and help make this battle of the sexes fun. Edward Brophy and Donald McBride are on hand for excellent support.<br /><br />As you can read in other reviews, Melvyn Douglas doesn't make much of a woman.<br /><br />Entertaining if a little on the long side.<br /><br />One of the comments here trashed Melvyn Douglas, one of our greatest actors. He literally floated effortlessly through dozens of films as the other man and the best friend before coming into his own in films as an old man. He wasn't lazy, but rather, a very hard-working actor (who made it look easy) who had a Broadway career simultaneously with his film career. He just wasn't cast as a leading man in films or given very challenging roles under the studio system. I challenge anyone to see his devastating performances in "Hud" and "I Never Sang for my Father" and call him lazy or make reference to his smirk.

The "Amazing Mr. Williams" stars Melvyn Douglas, who did five films in 1939, one of which was Ninotchka with Garbo. His co-star was Joan Blondell (Maxine), who ALSO did five films that year, THREE of which they made together! Douglas is Lt. Williams, and he and his co-horts are presented with a dead body, and they must figure out what really happened. Viewers will recognize his co-workers - the actors (Clarence Kolb, Donald MacBride, Don Beddoe) always played positions of authority... senators, bank presidents, policemen. This who-dunnit has a flair of comedy to it -- the policemen are always throwing jabs at each other, and even Williams and his girlfriend are battling verbally. Some fun gags - Williams even takes the man they arrested along on a date with his girlfriend. There's a lot of fun stuff in here, so get past the slow beginning and wait for the funnier stuff later on. Don't want to give away any spoilers, so you'll have to catch it on Turner Classic Movies. Director Alexander Hall made mostly comedies, and was reportedly engaged to Lucy at some point.

Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this.

A genuine screaming situation comedy farce of the mid 70s this film was a HUGE hit for about 5 minutes and disappeared off the face of the earth. I am constantly amazed at some comedy films that are a big release one week and then vanish: HIGH ANXIETY, THE CHEAP DETECTIVE, THE BLACK BIRD, DON'T LOOK NOW WE'RE BEING SHOT AT.......... and have no profile at all today. NORMAN was the comedy of the month in whenever 1976 and everyone seemed to see it, laugh about it and then never ever mention it ever again. Famous for being shot on videotape and transferred to film, an experiment at the time, NORMAN is a raucous politically incorrect closet slamming farce that The Farrelly Brothers should look at remaking today. If they had made it in the first place there would be no complaints about its content and slant either. It is very funny and YES very rude and hilariously all wrong. Just as it should be. In fact as a groovy 1976 film with all those horror colours and clothes it actually works better today.

Even though this movie came out a year before I was born, it is definetely one of my favorite comedies. It stars Redd Foxx as a father who tries to understand his son's homosexuality. Like most parents, he doesn't know a thing about what it means to be gay and has all of these stereotypical notions of what gay people are like. His son, Norman, is now grown up and living on his own. When his father, Ben, finds out that his son is gay, he pays his son a visit in hopes of changing him. The title comes from one of the funniest lines in the movie--when Ben gets to Norman's apartments he runs into a female prostitute and thinks it's his son in drag ("Norman... Is that you?"). The movie had me laughing from start to finish. Redd Foxx is great. Although a lot of the content is stereotypical, I didn't find anything offensive about the way the material was handled, and it even has a good ending. Highly recommended.

I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.<br /><br />So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream…" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.<br /><br />Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls. <br /><br />So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.<br /><br />His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all! <br /><br />RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.<br /><br />Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.<br /><br />So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.<br /><br />There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-—and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.<br /><br />Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.<br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.

Norman, Is That You? was (this is all third hand, so take it with a grain of salt) adapted to an African American family from a Jewish one, when it made the transition off stage and onto screen. Also, it was one of those movies originally filmed in video, so the prints from the theater can't have been that great. Still, performances by Redd Foxx and others were pretty good. <br /><br />What I wanted to tell you all is that the movie is a PERIOD PIECE: it reflected the attitudes in the mid to early 70s about finding out you have a gay son or daughter in your family. For that reason alone, it's pretty interesting- if not a little "hollywood". Don't believe me? Check out lines about curtains, etc. Very stereotypical. Not too deep.<br /><br />But... the movie really shines in a couple of areas. There is a side splitting scene when Redd Foxx is trying to find his wife, who's run away with his brother (!) to Ensenada in a souped up Pinto. The phone conversation across the border is really memorable. <br /><br />But... the best scene in the movie is when Wayland Flowers and Madame did his/their gay routine that he used to do in gay bars and nightclubs. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only time that routine was filmed. And, it's a slightly cleaned up and much shorter version, I'm told. Still, it's vintage Madame, and shouldn't be missed. People are still stealing lines from Wayland; the man was truly gifted. Enjoy the movie!

This movie was extremely funny, I would like to own this for my vintage collection of 1970s movie must see again list, I know this cast of characters ,they are people that I have met over the years and that prompt me to search out this comedy, unfortunately this was never put to DVD or VHS. Redd Foxx always a clown of comedy, Pearl Baily a great match as his wife witty and sassy, Norman a son with a secret not sure if he will have a future if it is out,Dennis Dugan crazy funny man . Miss Dobson hooker with a heart and little conscience. Love,lust,strange family ties this movie qualifies for a come back encore performance ,situation comedy with a mix of events as this could and should find its way as a remake, I do think finding cast would be extremely difficult maybe impossible,except Jerry Seinfeld playing Dennis Dugan role, this earmarks a couple of Seinfeld episodes that also brought me back to Norman is that you ,keeping them in the closest was surely impossible as impossible to reform pretend hooker girl friend and infidelity of a parent. This movie was a wild ride advise of a cabbie, remind me of episode Kramer takes advice of his caddie over his lawyer. ( episode from Seinfeld ) The parents have there jaw dropping moment, fun over fun It is screaming bring me back .

This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.

The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.<br /><br />Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.<br /><br />If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film.

Never viewed this film until recently on TCM and found this story concerning Poland and a small town which had to suffer with the Nazi occupation of the local towns just like many other European Cities for example: Norway. The First World War was over and people in this town were still suffering from their lost soldiers and the wounded which War always creates. Alexander Knox, ( Wilhelm Gimm)"Gorky Park" returns from the war with a lost leg and was the former school teacher in town. He was brought up a German and was not very happy with the Polish people and they in turn did not fully accept him either. As the Hitler party grew to power Wilhelm Grimm desired to become a Nazi in order to return and punish this small Polish town for their treatment towards him which was really all in his mind. Marsha Hunt,(Marja Pacierkowski),"Chloe's Prayer", played an outstanding role as a woman who lost her husband and was romantically involved with Whilhelm Gimm. There are many flashbacks and some very real truths about how the Nazi destroyed people's families and their entire lives. The cattle cars are shown in this picture with Jewish people heading to the Nazi gas chambers. If you have not seen this film, and like this subject matter, give it some of your time; this film is very down to earth for a 1944 film and a story you will not forget too quickly.

This was a wonderful little American propaganda film that is both highly creative AND openly discusses the Nazi atrocities before the entire extent of the death camps were revealed. While late 1944 and into 1945 would reveal just how evil and horrific they were, this film, unlike other Hollywood films to date, is the most brutally honest film of the era I have seen regarding Nazi atrocities.<br /><br />The film begins in a courtroom in the future--after the war is over (the film was made in 1944--the war ended in May, 1945). In this fictitious world court, a Nazi leader is being tried for war crimes. Wilhelm Grimm is totally unrepentant and one by one witnesses are called who reveal Grimm's life since 1919 in a series of flashbacks. At first, it appears that the film is going to be sympathetic or explain how Grimm was pushed to join the Nazis. However, after a while, it becomes very apparent that Grimm is just a sadistic monster. These episodes are amazingly well done and definitely hold your interest and also make the film seem less like a piece of propaganda but a legitimate drama.<br /><br />All in all, the film does a great job considering the film mostly stars second-tier actors. There are many compelling scenes and performances--especially the very prescient Jewish extermination scene towards the end that can't help but bring you close to tears. It was also interesting how around the same point in the film there were some super-creative scenes that use crosses in a way you might not notice at first. Overall, it's a must-see for history lovers and anyone who wants to see a good film.<br /><br />FYI--This is not meant as a serious criticism of the film, but Hitler was referred to as "that paper hanger". This is a reference to the myth that Hitler had once made money putting up wallpaper. This is in fact NOT true--previously he'd been a "starving artist", homeless person and served well in the German army in WWI. A horrible person, yes, but never a paper hanger!

Wilhelm Grimm (Alexander Knox) stands trial for Nazi crimes. Three witnesses give evidence - Father Warecki (Henry Travers), Wilhelm's brother Karl (Erik Rolf) and Wilhelm's former lover Marja (Marsha Hunt) - before Wilhelm speaks in his own defense. The film ends after the court sums up....<br /><br />The film is told in three flashback segments as each of the witnesses takes the stand. The story is mostly set in a small Polish village and memorable scenes include the village reaction to the death of Anna (Shirley Mills), who Wilhelm is accused of raping; the treatment of the Jewish villagers as they prepare to be moved to concentration camps; and the church service where Willie Grimm (Richard Crane) denounces his Nazi upbringing whilst mourning for his girlfriend Janina (Dorothy Morris), Marja's daughter, after she has been shot at a brothel.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Knox is unrepentant and is very convincing as a bitter, resentful and evil man. Martha Hunt has some powerful moments and matches him with her strength and Henry Travers is also very good in his role as a priest. This film delivers an effective story that stays with you once it has finished.

Made after QUARTET was, TRIO continued the quality of the earlier film versions of the short stories by Maugham. Here the three stories are THE VERGER, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL, and SANITORIUM. The first two are comic (THE VERGER is like a prolonged joke, but one with a good pay-off), and the last more serious (as health issues are involved). Again the author introduces the film and the stories.<br /><br />James Hayter, soon to have his signature role as Samuel Pickwick, is the hero in THE VERGER. He holds this small custodial-type job in a church, but the new Vicar (Michael Hordern) is an intellectual snob. When he hears Hayter has no schooling he fires him. Hayter has saved some money, so he tells his wife (Kathleen Harrison) he fancies buying a small news and tobacco shop. He has a good eye, and his store thrives. Soon he has a whole chain of stores. When his grandchild is christened by Hordern, the latter is amazed to see how prosperous his ex-Verger. The payoff is when bank manager Felix Aylmer meets with Hayter about diversifying his investments. I'll leave it to you to hear the unintentional but ironic coda of the meeting.<br /><br />According to Maugham he met a man like Max Kelada (Nigel Patrick) on a cruise. In MR. KNOW-IT-ALL Kelada is a splashy, friendly, and slightly overbearing type from the Middle East who is on a business trip (regarding jewelry) by steamship. His state-room mate is Mr. Grey (the ever quiet and proper Wilfred Hyde-White) who is somewhat, silently disapproving of Max. Max likes to enliven things, and soon is heavily involved in the ship's entertainment. At this point the story actually resembles part of the plot of the non-Maugham story and film CHINA SEAS (1935), as Max makes a bet that he can tell a real piece of jewelry from a fake (after insisting that a piece of jewelry he spotted is real). I won't describe the way Max rises to the occasion.<br /><br />SANITORIUM is the longest segment. Roland Culver plays "Ashenden" (the fictional alter-ego of Maugham - a writer and one time spy as in Hitchcock's THE SECRET AGENT). Here he has to use a sanitorium for a couple of months for his health. He finds a remarkable crew of people, including Jean Simmons as a frail but beautiful young woman, Finlay Currie as an irascible Scotsman, John Laurie as a second irascible Scotsman who is "at war" with Currie, Raymond Huntley as a quiet patient who only shows his internal anger at his situation when his wife shows up, and Michael Rennie as a young man who has a serious life threatening illness. Culver watches as three stories among these characters play out to their conclusions. The last, dealing with Simmons and Rennie, is ironic but deeply moving.<br /><br />It was a dandy follow-up to the earlier QUARTET, and well worth watching.

This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!<br /><br />The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.<br /><br />The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!<br /><br />Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively.

Trio's vignettes were insightful and quite enjoyable. It was curious seeing so many soon to be famous actors when they were very young. The performances and attention to detail were wonderful to watch.<br /><br />Observation. In film it isn't necessary that source material be in alignment with the contemporary era to be interesting or worthwhile. "Small morality" storytelling is quaint (or coy) only in the eye of the beholder--thankfully. Story content--well told--can overcome it's time, subject or place.<br /><br />Ironically, there are quite a few contemporary films today that have not overcome the conventions or cutting edge mores of the present era. Inserting "small morality" content--occasionally--might provide a dimension lacking.

The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.

Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.<br /><br />“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger! <br /><br />The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer! <br /><br />As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).

We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by "serious" film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)<br /><br />This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.<br /><br />It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold.

I was brought up on Doc Savage,and was petrified by the green death as a child but even then as now, I found it thoroughly entertaining.I have made countless friends and colleagues watch this film and have been most amused by the diversity of reactions,granted they mostly think I'm odd but there you are. "I don't know what it is about the Doc, but he always gets the girls" has to be the ultimate line when you look at his sad band of men. This film is a classic spoof on all the super hero genre,and was way before it's time,it is not to be taken seriously, move over Austin Powers. Ron Ely is a God.It is unfortunate that this film hasn't been released on DVD in the UK. I don't think it should be remade and bastardised, like I said it's a classic,it cannot be done without Ron.(like the Italian job without Mini's and Michael Caine). I give it 10/10.

Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"<br /><br />Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10

This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner.

The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as "camp" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little "funny" music undercuts much of the drama.<br /><br />Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.<br /><br />The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.<br /><br />But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the "heroes must be camp" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, "Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!"<br /><br />But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.

Most people miss Hollywood's point of concept. If a hero can stimulate heroic deeds to the mind of a child, within the confines of the law then I, approve of the lessons being taught by Doc Savage.<br /><br />In all times of conflict or war, the public and government look for heroes to decorate. The motion picture industry brings heroes to the screen for people to identify with - such as Doc Savage, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman and others. Doc Savage is remembered by more than one generation as being the 'best of the best' before James Bond, Superman or any of the others. All others that follow Doc Savage are only a part of the character, not the 'Man of Bronze'.

***Possible spoilers***<br /><br />I recently watched this movie with my 11 year old son and was pleased to see that he laughed in the right places and was thrilled by the action sequences. Ron Ely is just right as Doc. Cool, calm, almost always in control(and with an occasional twinkle in his eye). What more can one ask for? I have never read a Doc Savage book, so I don't know if it is faithful to the source but I enjoyed the light tone and derring-do. Many people have compared this movie to Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I don't think is fair. The difference in budget is astounding(Raiders must have at least 10 times the budget). Doc Savage does not have the extensive location work that Raiders has. Special effects are also at a minimum but come on people, the story is a lot of fun and the humor is just right. The Sousa music is catchy(love that theme song- Every time I watch the film, I end up humming the theme for days).The best way to approach this film is to just RELAX and enjoy. Highlights include the exciting opening sequence where the fabulous five and Doc chase the Indian sniper throughout the rooftops of New York and the VERY funny fight sequence between Doc and Captain Seas. Not as good is the villain who sleeps in a giant crib (really!). Overall a great movie to watch on a rainy day. I give it 7 out of 10.<br /><br />Doc Savage, Doc Savage...thank the lord he's here!

Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!<br /><br />OK…..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective…..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?<br /><br />The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!<br /><br />Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.<br /><br />Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! – Priceless!<br /><br />Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)

It has said that The Movies and Baseball both thrived during The Great Depression. It appears that the grim realities of a Nation caught up in the aftermath of this Economic Disaster created a need for occasional relief for the populace. A temporary escape could be found in the on going soap opera that is Baseball.<br /><br />Likewise, an occasional excursion of 2 or 3 hours into the darkened auditoriums of the Cinema. The presence of a Radio in just about everyone's house hold kept Depression Era America at once attuned to World's Events and provided many a Drama and (especially) Comedy Shows for a pleasant interlude from harsh reality.<br /><br />The literature of the time also flourished at all levels. The juvenile reading habits helped to create the Comic Book as we know it, what with all the fantastic characters and super exciting adventures. But the Comic Book just did not magically appear, all fully developed with all the colorful 4 color pages, all by itself. There were mediums that were ancestral to them. Obviously,the Newspaper Comic Strip was one parent, providing the visual/narrative method of story telling.<br /><br />The other direct ancestor was the Pulp Magazine. The inexpensive, prose story publications that carried a great deal of stories of the same adventure characters in on going, though not necessarily serialized, tales. The pulp medium had been around for some decades and introduced us to Edgar Rice Borrough's TARZAN and Johnston McCulley's ZORRO. The 1930's brought forth a bumper crop as feature characters like THE SHADOW, THE AVENGER, G8's BATTLE ACES and THE SPIDER,MASTER of MEN all found their way to the news stands, among many others.<br /><br />One other was DOC SAVAGE, a full-blooded super hero of the written story; the covers of the pulps had perhaps, the only "picture" of the hero. Possessing extraordinary strength, super keen senses and a protean genius class intellect, Doc was the prototype Super Hero.<br /><br />He also assembled 5 of his former Army Buddies into a small, free lancing team of adventurers. Each of them was an expert in a given field. So we had a top rated: Chemist, Lawyer, Construction Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Geologist-Archaeologist-Paleontologist, etc.<br /><br />The Doc Savage stories were very popular in the 1930's and '40's, and were published into the middle '50's. Then they went into a hiatus for a good 12-15 years. Then the brainstorm came about to repackage the old novels in new "container", the paperback book. A fresh look to the cover art was introduced, featuring a highly stylized series of paintings of a very muscular Doc, with a perpetually ripped shirt.<br /><br />The re-introduction proved to be highly successful, with the publication of a title a month (and for a while more). Soon, there was a rumor of a Doc Savage movie! But when, by what Producer? Well, the venerable "Man of Bronze" was back on the news stands for over 10 years before any real project got put together. It was veteran Stop-action Animator and Producer of top Special Effects films, Geoprge Pal, who did the film along with Warner Brothers.<br /><br />When DOC SAVAGE, MAN OF BRONZE arrived in the Movie Houses, it boasted of a well casted team of actors, albeit a largely "No Name" as far familiarity with the viewers. With former Tarzan of TV,Ron Ely's nearly perfect casting in the lead, up and coming Beauty of a Starlette, Pamela Hensley in the female lead and veteran character Paul Wexler (as the villainous, Captain Seas); no other name would have been recognized. And, just maybe that was a plus in this case.<br /><br />The story does a fine job of both getting most of the audience acquainted with the incredible group and at the same time get a plot going. Use of narration, by Paul Frees, and short film clips are the method pursued to move the introduction along to the main body of the story.<br /><br />From the very start, there are hints that this story will go with the same sort of manufactured "Camp" humor as the Batman TV series. Some really great looking early scenes involving Doc and the whole crew doing their individual specialties are thrown toward humor by the Paul Frees narration and the unexpected, unlikely outcomes. (For Example, an experiment of Doc's with a miniature rocket/missile turns out to be part of a method of catching fish, a small one at that.) The whole story unfolds like that, hitting the viewer with a little 'Camp' every so often, as to keep reminding us not to take it too seriously. We are also puzzled about Mr. George Pal's being the Producer(his last). He who had been so well known for Special Effects, surely a factor that could be put to good use in a sci-fi action setting of the Pulp Character's world.<br /><br />I can remember seeing it quite vividly. Mrs. Ryan (Deanna) was in the Hospital, just having given birth to our 2nd child, Michelle(08/14/75). Our older girl, Jennifer, was visiting her Grandmother, so after visiting hours were over in the Maternity Ward, it was straight over to the old Marquette Theatre, 63rd & Kedzie, here in Chicago.<br /><br />Having seen it and being a guy with a good familiarity with Doc, I was sort of let down by the final product. I could accept a little of this 'Camp' business, but would not have objected if Mr.Pal would have seen fit to let it all hang out and have some real neat Dinosaurs and Volcanoes to give it all a little more Pulp/Comic/Serial type excitement.<br /><br />And yet, the cast, headed-up by Mr. Ely and the others, made the whole film likable, if not lovable. The sets and locations were, as far as we can see, very much like those of a '30's serial or adventure flick which would be enjoyable to about anyone.<br /><br />And maybe that's just what they were trying for with this DOC SAVAGE, MAN of BRONZE.

You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.

Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.

This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). "Examination Day" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking "phones" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that "A Message from Charity" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.

This one and "Her Pilgrim Soul" are two of my favorite episodes in this new version of Twilight Zone. As I mentioned in my comment on the new series, there's something lacking in this new series. Maybe they emphasize too much the lesson that has to be learned. It's a little bit more mawkish and sentimental than Serling's version. However, this episode can be considered as quite sentimental too. I think the appeal is that no matter what they do, the lovers can never unite. I remember I wasn't surprised by the Korean movie "Il Mare" (later remade into "The Lake House". I think it's because I saw this episode first so it ruined the impact of the later film.

China O'Brien (1990) was an attempt to make Cynthia Rothrock a star in the United States. This Golden Harvet production was helmed by veteran director Robert Clouse. Sadly he was either lucky with Enter the Dragon or he's lost his touch because he's not that great of a director. The only reason to watch this movie is to see the fighting skills of Ms. Rothrock and Richard Norton. If this movie was directed by Corey Yuen or Hoi Meng it could have been an action classic instead of a cheesy straight-to-video action flick.<br /><br />China O'Brien returns home to help out her dad. He's having trouble with the local mob and he needs her help. So she returns home and restores order (with the help of two unlikely people). But will they be enough to topple Mister Big and his evil cronies?<br /><br />If you're a big Cynthia Rothrock fan then this movie's catered for you. I only enjoyed the fighting scenes, everything else is rubbish. Why didn't Raymond Chow shell out a few shekels and hired a top notch action director?<br /><br />Recommended.

As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!

Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.<br /><br />One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.<br /><br />Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.<br /><br />The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.<br /><br />Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one.

Starring: Jim Carrey, Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Anniston I was really quite skeptical the first time I watched this movie. I mean, what a conceptual NIGHTMARE. Jim Carrey playing God? Nothing is sacred anymore.<br /><br />Well, this movie is hardly sacred, but it also is not sacrilegious, at least not to any great extent. Yes, Jim Carrey has the powers of God for a while, but he is not God. Confused? I'll give you the low down.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays Bruce Nolan, a reporter who is down on his luck and feeling very unsuccessful with his life. He lives with his beautiful girlfriend, Grace (Anniston), and you can tell right off the bat that they love each other, but the relationship is on fairly shaky ground.<br /><br />Then Bruce gets a shot at anchorman, only to have it underhandedly stolen by Evan Baxter. Obviously not please, Bruce shares his thoughts with the world through the television in a way which is comical and definitely worthy of getting him fired.<br /><br />Much complaining and griping about God later, Bruce gets a page. After a while he gets tired of it calling, so he responds and goes to the Omni Presents building (heh). There he meets God (Freeman), who is the Boss, Electrician, and Janitor of the building. I found this highly amusing. God is the Boss, the Holy Spirit is the Electrician, and Jesus Christ is the Janitor. Think about it. Boss, obvious. Electrician, the guy who keeps everything running. Janitor, the guy who cleans up the mess that the world has left. BRILLIANT.<br /><br />Anyway, Bruce is a little skeptical about having actually met God, but when God gives Bruce his powers and gives him a shot at playing God, he starts to believe a bit. Wonder why. Enter the flagrant abuse of powers for personal gain and to abuse the enemies.<br /><br />Since this is Hollywood, Bruce obviously eventually smartens up, learns his lesson, and starts using his powers for the good of the world. In the end he cries out for God to take it away and prays that His will be done, not Bruce's.<br /><br />Since it is Jim Carrey, the movie is quite amusing, and there are definitely some highly entertaining moments in it. The movie is not perfect theology, but for Hollywood, it is definitely a good attempt. Many statements in the film can be quite thought provoking and even challenging, and I applaud Tom Shadyac for his effort in this movie.<br /><br />So, while far from perfect, definitely an amusing popcorn movie with a little bit of thought behind it.<br /><br />Bottom Line: 3.5 out of 4 (worth a view or two)

Now either you like Mr Carrey's humour or you don't. Me, Myself and Irene had audiences both walking out in droves and, on the other hand, cheering and collapsing in puddles of mirth. Bruce Almighty is a bit more mainstream, but you have been warned.<br /><br />If you're not sure, watch the trailer. I saw the trailer three times and still laughed at the same gags when I saw the film. If you don't find the sight of a dog putting the seat down after using the loo funny, don't bother with the movie.<br /><br />Carrey, a reporter stuck in a rut covering 'lighter news' berates God when the whole of his life seems to be going to pot. God takes up the challenge and asks Carrey if he can do better. Carrey gets into the swing of having all of God's powers by making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston)'s breasts bigger, getting himself promoted, and answering everyone's prayers by single stroke computer commands.<br /><br />This is not a highbrow movie or even that memorable, but it is very well made within it's very limited intent, provides almost continuous laughs to Carrey fans, and even any religious cheesiness is likely to be inoffensive to all but the most narrow-minded god-squadders and anti-god-squadders.<br /><br />On the more thoughtful level, the film tempts us to speculate about Carrey's own career - stuck in his 'comedy' typecasting he has largely failed to make an impression as a serious actor even after winning two Golden Globes. His most accomplished 'straight' role, the Man on the Moon, is less well known that his comedy romps - or The Truman Show (on which the Academy heaped three nominations whilst bypassing Carrey).

Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best.