Normally I try to avoid Sci-Fi movies as much as I can, because this just isn't a genre that really appeals to me. Light sabers, UFO's, aliens, time traveling... most of the time it's nothing for me. However, there is one movie in the genre that I'll always give a place in my list of top movies and that's this "Twelve Monkeys" I remember to be completely blown away by it the first time, but even now, after having it seen several times already, I'm still one of its biggest fans. Every time I see it, this movie seems to get better and better.

Somewhere in the distant future all people live underground because an unknown and lethal virus wiped out five billion people in 1996, leaving only 1 percent of the population alive. James Cole is one of them. He's a prisoner who lives in a small cage and who is chosen as a 'volunteer' to be sent back to in time to gather information about the origin of the epidemic. They believe it was spread by a mysterious group called 'The Twelve Monkeys' and need the virus before it mutated, so that scientists can study it. But their time traveling machine doesn't work perfectly yet and he is accidentally sent to 1990, where he meets Dr. Kathryn Railly, a psychiatrist, and Jeffrey Goines, the insane son of a famous scientist and virus expert...

What I like so much about this movie is the fact that it is never clear whether all what you are seeing is real or not. Is this just an illusion, created in the mind of a mentally ill man or is it real? Does he really come from the future and can he really travel through time? Was the population really wiped out by a virus, released by the army of The Twelve Monkeys? Those are all questions that will leave you wondering from the beginning until the end. If the makers of this movie had chosen to make it all more obvious, I'm sure that I would never have liked it as much as I did now. It's just that mysteriousness that keeps me interested time after time. But that's not the only good thing about this movie of course. The acting is amazing too. Normally I'm not too much a fan of Bruce Willis, but what he did in this movie was just astonishing. Together with Madeleine Stowe and Brad Pitt he should have won several awards for it, because together with the amazing story, they made this movie work so incredibly well.

Even after several viewings, I'm still a huge fan of this movie. Except for this movie, I have only seen one other Terry Gilliam movie and that's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", which wasn't bad, but didn't really convince me either. However, it's this movie that really makes me look forward to his other work. I give it a 9/10, maybe even a 9.5/10.


NB: Spoilers within. This great movie is "about" so many things, all of them successfully: sci-fi time travel, unstable psychologies, dystopian society, the what-is-real syndrome, gradual undermining of belief systems, worldwide bioterrorism, and a nascent love story.

The ramifications of the story's twisted time line stir up loads of heated debate - witness the discussions within this site; or, as an extreme, check out the dissertation at www.mjyoung.net/time/monkeys.html. Whew! Such temporal emphasis speaks mostly to the brilliant plot, coming from the magnificent work of writers David and Janet Peoples, not to mention the inspiration of Chris Marker's "La Jetee." Without a doubt, this is one of the most successful, fascinating time-travel movies ever conceived. But there are many other levels speaking here.

The movie's real genius is to focus on the nasty side effects of time-travel in the mind of James Cole (Bruce Willis, doing the best work of his career here). His journey progresses from gung-ho vaccine-hunting warrior to gradually unhinged victim  and back again. The other broad sweep of the story increasingly emphasizes the personal tale between James and Dr. Kathryn Railly (the wonderful Madeleine Stowe). I love the simultaneous shifting/opposing viewpoints of these two characters. For me it all comes to a head in the fleabag hotel room scene. By this point, James  once gripped by an unshakable determination  now slumps in utter doubt about his own reality; while Dr. Railly  the cool and rational scientist  has finally become wildly convinced, after absorbing James's proofs, of his horrific predictions. Her desperation to get through to James and hang on to the mission shows how far she's come.

Gilliam makes us care about these characters, especially through the crescendo of tension threading their lives. The balance held between emotional roller-coaster and mounting sci-fi puzzle/thriller is exquisite. And the denouement at the airport is heart-poundingly intense because we see it coming so clearly through James's dreams. It is here, just after James has decided to quit the whole mess  and is fighting his insanity more than ever  that he steps back up to the plate and does what is necessary for mankind. See Jose and the gun (Just before this, the references to Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and identity switching/confusion are brilliant.) This is a movie to be hashed out between thinking people; it not only holds up under repeated viewings, it demands them. "Twelve Monkeys" is intelligent, provocative, bizarre, funny, and suspenseful stuff.

The supporting cast is excellent, especially Brad Pitt stealing all of his scenes and showing great flexibility as Jeffery Goines, crazed and spoiled, but ever the survivor. And there is David Morse as Dr. Peters (interesting how the movie simply leaves to the viewer his wicked motivation) and Christopher Plummer as Dr. Goines. But the biggest accolades belong to Terry Gilliam, surpassing here - just barely - his outstanding "Brazil." (Lots of parallels, of course, especially the lonely combatant trying to escape his crumbling surroundings: lunacy within, lunacy without.) Every frame of this movie has his unique stamp and tone. The soundtrack is terrific, too.

This is one of the great achievements of the 90s, a true favorite of mine, and sure to hold up for a long time to come.


I just bought the DVD and i must say, (after seeing Brazil and Fear an loathing in Las Vegas) Terry does it again. As well of being a fan of the Monty Python movies, Terry Gilliam's genius follows through in this sci fi thriller, whom Bruce Willis plays a wonderful role as James Cole, and as well (perhaps my favorite character) Brad Pitt who played the insanity of Jefferey Goines. A must have for sci fi fans, or movie fan of any type really, because it includes suspense, drama, action, etc.

any way the plot, In the future, 1% of the world's population survives a disease intended to wipe out the human race, which is unleashed in the past by "the army of twelve monkeys". James Cole( Bruce Willis) is sent back to 1996 (which is when the virus was unleashed) to find out about the disease, so scientists in his time can find a cure. Before i go further, James Cole lives in an underground society, and the animals rule the world on the surface due to the disease that will kill the humans. anyway when he is sent back in time he is actually sent back to 1990 where he is sent to a mental institution because of his tellings to people of the virus. During his stay he meets Jefferey Goins( Brad Pitt) who is later mostly responsible for wiping out the human race. He also meets his psychiatrist ((Madelein Stowe) who eventually teams up with Bruce to save the world ( as she sees that he is correct in his tellings), he is sent back and forth from his time to the past and eventually sent to 1996 where he then questions his own sanity but later pulls through to reveal a suspenseful end quarter of the movie and later builds up to the somewhat shocking climax, where he tries to stop the man carrying the virus( not actually Brad Pitt) and is instead shot by the police as the killer gets away.


I can't decide whether this is one of my favourite movies. It is a good thriller and has an emotional core but still I can't decide. I definitely liked it. This is the first movie of Terry Gilliam that I have seen. My first impression? I was engaged till the very end and it is not all that complex(to be confusing).

The movie is set in the future. A man James Cole(Bruce Willis) is sent from the future in order to get some information from the past(1996 to be specific). A virus killed 5 billion people. He is sent from the future to get some information about it. Also involved here are a psychiatrist called Kathryn Railly. The love story is portrayed beautifully and you can really feel the longing in this love and longing for a regular life. The loose ends are tied up in a very interesting manner at the end.

One thing I liked about this movie is that unlike other post-apocalyptic movies, the movie didn't prefer to give any boring social commentary and instead focused on this one guy and his longing for a regular life. "You want to see the ocean, be with her" is especially a poignant line in this movie. It chooses to focus on the tension and confusion in the person's mind. Therefore this is not exactly post apocalyptic movie but instead it could be described as a romantic sci fi movie with themes that range from time travel to blurred realities and so on. This is what makes this movie a special movie of the 1990's. The complex plot flows smoothly without adding too many characters.

The performances are quite good. Bruce willis surprised me here as he didn't act the regular tough guy here but he gave a good performance of a confused man who is in love. His desperation in certain sequences is portrayed beautifully. I have to check out his other movies. The gorgeous Madeleine Stowe is quite a treat to watch. EVer since I saw this movie, I have become so obsessed with her. She has given a great performance of a woman who sympathises with her patient and finally falls in love with him. Brad Pitt is the real surprise though with his portrayal of a crazy man named Jeffrey Goines. His Oscar nominated performance is quite surprising considering that he doesn't have many critics who have kind words for him.

The end is quite chilling and that is also another reason to watch the movie. The length or complexity is not as big a problem because this film is quite fast moving and there are enough incidents to keep people interested. And every incident in this movie has a meaning and nothing is there that is unnecessary.

Good thriller 10/10


A great addition to anyone's collection.

12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.

The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.

A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.

The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.

The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.

The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.

This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.

I very much highly recommend it.

10/10


First of all, we know that Bruce Willis is a good actor but if you take the majority of his movies you'll see that the characters have these moments where they are the same. His character in this movie is far beyond every single one so far... and counting. The story begins in the (not so far) future where a man is sent to the past to find the source of a virus that has swept most of humanity from the face of the earth. The story seems to go towards SF but i think its closer to a drama because of the slow rhythm of the story. About that. Movies tend to be faster and slower at some points and develop more towards the end than the beginning but as you see this movie you'll be aware of this constant rhythm of story and revealing facts that does not speed up nor slow down. Its the one and the same speed that flows gently and pretty good. But that doesn't mean that the ending wont pull your nerves, cause its pretty good. As far as the direction goes, it is prefect. Movies as such are easily destroyed by bad directing but this one has become far better. So, if you are getting ready to see a Sci-Fi movie or some action, you'll miss it. B There should be more movies like this.


The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, "The Twelve Monkeys did it." Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a "volunteer" to get some samples from above. After he does his "volunteer" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.

Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.

For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece.


Terry Gilliam gives a stunning movie, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe, Brad Pitt and even the small appearance of Christover Plummer makes the movie absolutely brilliant! This is the only Terry Gilliam film I've seen, and Twelve Monkeys is definitely in my top 10. I think this is one of the four best Bruce Willis movies; and Brad Pitt's best. Brad Pitt delivers a perfect performance. Possibly one of the ten best actor's performance that I've ever seen. He played his role (Geoffrey) very convincingly. Bruce Willis' role (James Cole) was also quite convincing. Both Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt acted extraordinarily well. With the brilliant story to back the great performances; and to back that up, Terry Gilliam's superb directing.


I really enjoyed this -- I'm a big fan of movies that mess with your mind and leave you with a lot of questions and ideas to debate, and this was a stellar example. But then, Terry Gilliam is always good at that (well, almost always. Let's just forget about Jabberwocky and The Brothers Grimm, shall we?).

I particularly liked the way it handled the time travel theme and the avoidance of paradoxes -- the way events in the past and future intertwined and fed into each other.

It was also really well done aesthetically -- the art direction was really great, and I wish I'd been able to see it on the big screen. The future scenes had a similar feel to Brazil in a lot of ways, and even the present scenes were often really visually compelling.

But perhaps the most striking thing about it was that it featured two actors I normally don't much like, Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt, and they both delivered amazing performances here. Pitt especially -- I'd seen one or two films before that made me realize he could in fact actually act (contrary to what I'd originally thought), but this one really outdid them. I actually found myself asking my friends at one point "Are you SURE that's Brad Pitt?" This is probably the most memorable performance of his career (though admittedly that may not be saying too much).


"Twelve Monkeys" is odd and disturbing, yet being so clever and intelligent at the same time. It cleverly jumps between future and the past, and the story it tells is about a man named James Cole, a convict, who is sent back to the past to gather information about a man-made virus that wiped out 5 billion of the human population on the planet back in 1996. At first Cole is sent back to the year 1990 by accident and by misfortune he is taken to a mental institution where he tries to explain his purpose and where he meets a psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly who tries to help him and a patient named Jeffrey Goines, the insane son of a famous scientist. Being provocative and somehow so sensible, dealing with and between reason and madness, the movie is a definite masterpiece in the history of science-fiction films.

The story is just fantastic. It's so original and so entertaining. The screenplay itself written by David and Janet Peoples is inspired by a movie named "La Jetée" (1962) which I haven't seen, but I must thank the director and writer of the movie, Chris Marker, for giving such an inspiration for the writers of "Twelve Monkeys". I read a little about "La Jetée", it's not the same story but it has the same idea, so this is not just a copy of it. David and Janet Peoples have transformed this great deal of inspiration to a modernized story, which tells about this urgent need for people to find a solution for maintaining human existence and it does it in a so beautiful and a realistic way that it's a guaranteed thrill ride from the beginning till the end. The music used in the film is odd and somehow so funny and amusing it doesn't really fit until you really get it and when you do you realise that it's so compelling, composed by Paul Buckmaster.

Terry Gilliam, who we remember from Monty Python, as the director of the movie was a real surprise for me, as I really never thought him as a director type of a person. I know he has directed movies before, but I really couldn't believe that he could make something this magnificent. It shouldn't be a surprise though, as he does an amazing job. You can still sense that same weirdness as in the Python's, but for me the directing is pretty much flawless though in its odd way of describing things it also makes some scenes strangely disturbing. Yes, it is indeed odd, weird, bizarre and disturbing, so it also makes the movie a bit heavy too, so the weak minded viewers will probably find it hard to watch the movie all the way through. It's not as heavy as you could imagine, but it just has these certain things which in their own purpose are sometimes pretty severe to watch. Despite that, the movie holds this pure intelligence inside it and through flashbacks, dreams, jumps between the past and the future it mixes up the whole story in a very clever way and it doesn't even make the plot messy in any part, though it does need concentration from the viewer after all.

What comes to acting, well the movie doesn't even go wrong there. The role of James Cole is played by the mighty Bruce Willis, who probably does his best role performance yet to date. Now people may disagree with me, as he did some fine job in for example "The Sixth Sense" as well, but for me the role of James Cole was so ideal for Willis and he performs it incredibly well. The character is very well written too, yet performed even better. Cole starts to question his own existence and he deals with himself, starting to question his actual time of living, trying to survive and find the crucial missing piece of the puzzle. By hardship he starts to loose his faith, questioning if he can even trust or believe himself. Other role performances worth mentioning are the performances of Madeleine Stow and Brad Pitt. Stow plays the role of Kathryn Railly, the psychiatrist of James Cole, who sees something strangely familiar in Cole and decides to help him to deal with his madness. She somehow starts to believe Cole's story but as a believer of science she tries to find solutions through it and tries to deal with reason when it comes to unbelievable things. Brad Pitt is so good in the role of Jeffrey Goines and he also does one of his best role performances yet to date. The insane yet hilarious personality of the character brought Pitt even an Oscar nomination for it, so I guess I'm not praising the honestly fabulous performance for nothing.

All in all, "Twelve Monkeys" is a great science-fiction experience and it will surely be a recommendation for everyone, especially for the sci-fi fans. It includes brilliant characters and superb role performances, especially from Willis and Pitt, and an original and an entertaining story which forms a plot that's so intelligent and clever. Yet being that already mentioned weird and disturbing it definitely captures the viewer's attention by making it interesting and witty. It's also an explosive thriller and it has romance in it too, so it's all that in same package and that makes it one of the best sci-fi motion pictures I've ever seen. Through the odd yet terrific vision of Terry Gilliam it manages to keep itself in balance despite the somewhat bumpy yet somehow stable ride. Hard to explain really, but that's how it is, it's mind blowing.


One of the all-time great science fiction works, as visionary and thought-provoking as Blade Runner or even Gilliam's own Brazil. Willis gives his best performance here, but he's outdone by Pitt's incredibly frenetic turn that's unlike anything he's done before or since. Even Stowe isn't out of her league here, though. The story is very layered and offers quite a lot to think about. The climactic scene is beautifully magnificent, and the last lines fit perfectly. The scenes in the mental hospital are creepy and yet so funny in their own way. Lots of dark humour on display here. Fantastic production design and suitably bizarre cinematography. In my top ten.


A very strong movie. Bruce is good and Brad also.

As I think there are two cities missed in the receptionist list from the list Bruce remembered.

That means the woman was a real insurance and she did her job.

Well, Novikov property seems to me work in this movie. However, I do believe in Back to the future theory of worlds' multiplicity.

So Bruce could save the world, but not his world.

In the theory of parallel worlds the man can meet himself.

And I do believe there is no problem in that. Here I disagree with Dr. Brown from Back...

But the story pf 12 Monkeys has its own beauty. Inspite of all these theories of one world or many or continuum one can believe that he is really insane and the doctor - his girlfriend was just lost.

A sequence of events which may lead her to believe that he is from the future. The bullet - well it might be some mistake, some falsification.

Well I like this movie - has to buy a DVD.

Best.


Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realized. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians


Terry Gilliam traveled again to the future (he had already done it in "Brazil") to tell this story about a virus that's destroying the human race.

The script is totally crazy with some easy tricks on it but it's quite entertaining and Gilliam proves that he's got imagination (the futuristic scenes are just great). As for the cast, Bruce Willis and the beautiful Madeleine Stowe (whatever happened to her??) are just OK, but Brad Pitt is so annoying, whenever he plays roles that are out of his hand he results so forced and he's not credible at all. He should just play good-looking successful young men.

*My rate: 7/10


One of the greatest film I have seen this year.Last maybe before sun rise, which is also seen late at night alone in the lab. I like the idea of the film,which suggest free will of man and our weakness against fate.With time past by James and Kathryn are destined to fail and an indescribable sorrow comes. I do like the end. but a big question also comes. The virus shall not be released again, should it?

In the last scene in the airport. Jose is sent back to meet James again by future scientists. When he tell him that scientists had already got his message and know someone else would spread the virus. And they two together meet Kathryn when Kathryn tell James the true man is DR. Goines assistant. So it is clearly Jose also get the true information about the virus,(James keep an eye on him at the time remember?) and he has teeth. So why everything is still happen?? Why future scientists don't do anything after the truth is revealed?? My biggest question after the film...


Twelve Monkeys is an insane time-travelling, action packed movie that stars Bruce Willis who plays James Cole, a man who is sent back in time to collect information about the devastating plague that ensues in November of 1996. Unfortunately, he is sent back too far to the year 1990 where everyone believes that he is insane.

This movie is thrilling and has great acting performances from Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. Twelve monkeys is one of the greatest time travelling movies that I believe anybody can enjoy. Terry Gilliam has created a true masterpiece

10/10


Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.

In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.

Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.

Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.

Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realised. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.

If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians.

Bonus material on the DVD makes for very interesting viewing. Gilliam was under more than normal pressure to bring the film in under budget, which is no particular surprise after the 'Munchausen' debacle and in light of his later attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. I would rate the 'making of' documentary as one of the more interesting I've seen. It certainly is no whitewash and accurately observes the difficulties and occasional conflict arising between the creative people involved. Gilliam's description of the film as his "7½th" release, on account of the film being written by writers other than himself - and therefore, not really 'his' film' - doesn't do the film itself justice.

Brad Pitt's portrayal of Goines is curiously engaging, although his character is not especially sympathetic. Watch for his slightly wall-eyed look in one of the scenes from the asylum. It's disturbing and distracting.

Probably a coincidence, the Louis Armstrong song 'What a Wonderful World' was used at the end of both '12 Monkeys' and the final episode of the TV series of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Both the film and the TV series also featured British actor Simon Jones.

'12 Monkeys' is a science fiction story that will entertain in the same way that the mental stimulation of a game of chess may entertain. It's not a mindless recreation, that's for sure.


One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.


It has been said that Deanna Durbin invented teenagery. This first film was one of the best. The humorous story presented a delightful 14 year old Deanna, a little beauty with a gorgeous voice, as the "Miss Fixit" in a family split by divorce. For plot summary, see other IMDb entries, but quickly Deanna and her two older sisters plan to go to America from Switzerland to prevent their father from remarrying. With an excellent supporting cast especially Barbara Read and Nan Grey as the sisters, good direction and editing, the film succeeds in captivating one even on subsequent viewings. Of Deanna's three songs, only "Il Bacio" is from the classical repertoire, but when she sings it in that police station scene, the film's place in history is assured. At least it was for this viewer who at the age of 15 was smitten for life with both Deanna and classical music. One of the many nice touches that occur throughout THREE SMART GIRLS is the brief glimpse of the drunk stretching his neck for a final glimpse of Deanna as the cops hustle him by! One unfortunate result of the success of this film was that subsequent writers for Durbin vehicles became locked into the "Miss Fixit" theme, which quickly became stale. Deanna herself never did. Her stature as an actress is more questionable than her charisma, which she certainly had. It seems to me that, like many another film personality, she substituted "naturalness" for the histrionic ability that she lacked. The ploy worked well for 21 feature films.


I'm surprised at the comments from posters stating that Jane Powell made the same type of films Deanna Durbin did. Although they were both young sopranos whose film images were crafted by Joe Pasternak, if this film is any indication, they were almost polar opposites.

While, in THREE SMART GIRLS, Durbin plays an impulsive "Little Miss Fixit," who, after some setbacks, manages to reunite her divorced parents, in its' semi-remake, THREE DARING DAUGHTERS, Jane Powell almost destroys the marriage between her screen Mom Jeanette MacDonald and new stepfather Jose Iturbi when she refuses to accept him and strong arms her younger siblings into rejecting him, too. From the Durbin and Powell films I've seen, I'd say these disparate qualities permeate the early films of both of these talented young performers.

As for Durbin's performance in THREE SMART GIRLS, I find it completely winning, and most impressive. Although it's clear from her occasionally shrill and over-emphatic line readings in some of the more energetic scenes that this is an early film for Deanna, watching the self-confident, knowing and naturally effervescent manner in which she delivers her lines and performs overall, and the subdued and tender manner she projects the more serious scenes, you'd never guess that this was the FIRST film role of a 14 year-old girl whose prior professional experience consisted almost exclusively of two years of vocal instruction.

Given that this film, and Durbin herself, were much publicized at the time as "Universal's last chance," the production must have been an impossibly stressful situation for a film novice of any age, but you'd never know it from the ease and assurance Durbin displays on screen. Although she's clearly still developing her acting style and demeanor before the camera (this was equally true of the early performances of much more experienced contemporaries like Garland, Rooney, O'Connor and Jane Powell), Durbin projects an extraordinary presence and warmth on camera that is absolutely unique to her, and, even here, in her first film, she manages to remain immensely likable despite the often quick-tempered impulsiveness of her character, and though she's occasionally shrill, she never for a second projects the coy and arch qualities that afflicted many child stars, including Jane Powell and some of the other young sopranos who followed in the wake of her success.

In short, like all great singing stars, Durbin was much more than just a "beautiful voice." On the other hand, while Durbin's pure lyric soprano is a truly remarkable and glorious instrument, the most remarkable thing about it, to me, was the way she is able to project her songs, without the slightest bit of affectation or "grandnes" that afflict the singing of adult opera singers like Lily Pons, Grace Moore and Jeanette MacDonald in films of the period

The film is also delightful, heavily influenced by screwball comedy, it backs Durbin up with a creme-de-la-creme of first-class screwball pros such as Charles Winninger, Binnie Barnes, Alice Brady, Ray Milland and Mischa Auer. The story is light and entertaining. True, it's hardly "realistic," but why would anyone expect it to be? If you want :"realistic" rent THE GRAPES OF WRATH or TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. On the other hand, if you're looking for a genuine, sweet, funny and entertaining family comedy with a wonderfully, charismatic and gifted adolescent "lead," and terrific supporting players, this film won't let you down.


Although she is little known today, Deanna Durbin was one of the most popular stars of the 1930s, a pretty teenager with a perky personality and a much-admired operatic singing voice. This 1937 was her first major film, and it proved a box-office bonanza for beleaguered Universal Studios.

THREE SMART GIRLS concerns three daughters of a divorced couple who rush to their long-unseen father when their still-faithful mother reveals he may soon remarry--with the firm intention of undermining his gold-digger girlfriend and returning him to their mother. Although the story is slight, the script is witty and the expert cast plays it with a neat screwball touch. Durbin has a pleasing voice and appealing personality, and such enjoyable character actors as Charles Winninger, Alice Brady, Lucile Watson, and Mischa Auer round out the cast. A an ultra-light amusement for fans of 1930s film.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


This film is so old I never realized how young looking Ray Milland looked in 1936, I remember him playing in a great film, "Lost Weekend". Ray plays the role of Michael Stuart, who is a very rich banker. There are three girls in this picture who are not very happy about their father and mother separating and they find out their father is going to get married to a young blonde who is a gold digger only looking for a rich sugar daddy. They hire a man to pose as a very rich Count, his name is Count Ariszted, (Misha Auer) who is drunk all the time and is penniless and gives plenty of comic laughs throughout the picture. Deanna Durbin, (Penny Craig) surprised everyone when she was booked in a police station and told the chief of police that she was an opera star and then Penny starts singing with the most fantastic soprano voice I have every heard, the entire police department and convicts started applauding, which was a very entertaining and enjoyable scene from this film. This is Deanna Durbin's first film debut and she became an instant success over night and went on to become a great movie star with Universal Studios after leaving MGM.


Cute film about three lively sisters from Switzerland (often seen running about in matching outfits) who want to get their parents back together (seems mom is still carrying the torch for dad) - so they sail off to New York to stop the dad from marrying a blonde gold-digger he calls "Precious". Dad hasn't seen his daughters in ten years, they (oddly enough) don't seem to mind and think he's wonderful, and meanwhile Precious seems to lead a life mainly run by her overbearing mother (Alice Brady), a woman who just wants to see to it her daughter marries a rich man. The sisters get the idea of pushing Precious into the path of a drunken Hungarian count, tricking the two gold-digging women into thinking he is one of the richest men in Europe. But a case of mistaken identity makes the girls think the count is good-looking Ray Milland, who goes along with the scheme 'cause he has a crush on sister Kay.

This film is enjoyable, light fare. Barbara Read as Kay comes across as sweet and pretty, Ray Milland looks oh so young and handsome here (though, unfortunately, is given little to do), Alice Brady is quite good as the scheming mother - but it is Deanna Durbin, a real charmer and cute as a button playing youngest sister Penny, who pretty much steals the show. With absolutely beautiful vocals, she sings several songs throughout the film, though I actually would have liked to have seen them feature her even more in this. The plot in this film is a bit silly, but nevertheless, I found the film to be entertaining and fun.


Deanna Durbin really did save Universal from bankruptcy and enabled it to remain a big studio. By the mid 30s most of the big directors that had been at Universal eg Milestone, Browning and Wyler had gone. Only James Whale remained but his prestigious horror films were behind him. Deanna and Judy Garland appeared in a short "Every Sunday" and initially Garland was suggested for the role of Penny in "Three Smart Girls". When Garland was unavailable Universal switched to Durbin. Initially she had been definitely a supporting player but her potential was so vivid that the script was rewritten to make her the star. Directed by Henry Koster the film had a European touch.

The film starts with a beautiful panorama of a lake in "Switzerland". The "three smart girls" of the title - three sisters, Joan (Nan Grey), Kay (Barbara Read) and Penny (Deanna Durbin) are sailing with Penny giving her glorious voice to "My Heart is Singing". All is not too well on the home front - their father is planning to remarry a younger woman (Binnie Barnes) so the three girls with the help of their trusty nurse (Lucille Watson) decide to go to New York and reunite him with their mother. Lucille Watson is best remembered for her role as Robert Taylor's stern mother in "Waterloo Bridge" (1941).

Donna is a gold-digger who, along with her scatty mother (Alice Brady), is determined to marry Judson Craig (Charles Winninger). For someone with no film experience Deanna is wonderful as Penny, a typical pesky, over enthusiastic kid sister and she is as pretty as a picture. When she sings "Someone to Care for Me" to her father you will just melt - what a glorious voice she had. She also has one of the funniest lines in the film. When her father consoles her with "I'll take you to the zoo tomorrow", she replies "Oh I can see enough monkeys around here"!!!

With the help of Bill Evans (John King) they decide to hire a "count" (Mischa Auer)to romance Donna. They arrange to meet at a nightclub but due to a mix-up Lord Michael Stuart (Ray Milland) is mistaken for the count and Donna falls for him (she thinks he owns half of Australia!!!) The plan backfires as he falls for Kay and Donna wants to hasten her marriage to Judson.

Penny decides to take matters into her own hands and runs away. She is taken to the local police station where she charms the cops with her rendition of "Il Bacio" (she is trying to convince them she is a young opera singer.) Everything ends happily with their mother (Nella Walker) sailing over to patch things up with their dad and in the meantime Donna makes the acquaintance of the phoney count (Mischa Auer) and sails off to Australia with him.

Highly recommended.


Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing.

Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer.

Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon.


Deanna Durbin, Nan Grey and Barbara Read are "Three Smart Girls" in this Universal film from 1936, which introduces Deanna Durbin to film audiences. It also stars Ray Milland, Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger, John King, Binnie Barnes and Alice Brady. It's a sweet story about three young women, now living in Switzerland with their divorced mother, who hear their father (Winninger) is marrying again. Not having seen him in 10 years and knowing their mother still loves him, they board a ship to America, with the help of the housekeeper/nanny, determined to stop the wedding. Realizing that the intended, called "Precious" (Barnes) is nothing but a gold-digger aided and abetted by her mother (Brady), they arrange for her to be introduced to a wealthy Count. This is arranged by their father's accountant (King). The man he chooses is a full-time drunk (Auer), but the girls mistake him for an actual wealthy count (Milland). What a mess.

This is a delightful film, not cloying or overly sugary at all, with some nice performances, particularly by Auer, Milland, Barnes and Brady. The young women are pretty and all do good work. The emphasis, of course, is on young Durbin, who is a natural actress and a beautifully-trained singer. In fact, her voice as a youngster is much more even than it would be as an adult - she has no trouble with the high notes, as she did later on because she put too much weight in the middle voice. She sings a delightful "Il Bacio" in a police station.

One of the nicest things about the film is to see the father, played by Charles Winninger, not want his children around - until he sees them and gets to know them. Barnes as the gold-digger isn't all that young, but the girls' mother looks way up there, so the inference probably was the older man seeking his youth with a younger, more glamorous woman. In fact, he finds the youth he was seeking in his daughters.

Universal gives Durbin the big star buildup here - she has the final shot in the movie. Ray Milland at this point was still paying his dues, and it will probably be a surprise even to film fans how young and attractive he is.

Very entertaining and of course, this led to a sequel and big stardom for Deanna.


Of course, the original is better, but this isn't as bad as everyone says! Yes, it is made up into 3 stories, but hey, so what?! I thought it was quite good to be honest. I actually liked how Anastasia changed a little when she fell in love, it shows what love can do. The stories were not so bad either.

I liked Cinderella's voice better in this too. I have nothing against her voice in the original, but I just think it sounds better here, more nicer. I liked her personality in this too, she had more of a backbone, yet she was still kind.

So, I'll give Cinderella II:Dreams Come True a 7/10.


Many people have commented that this movie was nowhere near as good as the first. Well, maybe it isn't - to you. However, how does your child react to it? Well, mine loved it more than the first.

Disney movies of the past can sometimes be a little harsh for little kids. (For example - Bambi's mother getting shot.) This movie was really great for my sensitive little girl who likes humor and happy endings.

If you want to be snobby about what should be Disney's standards based on the past - skip this movie.

If you have a sweet little girl or soft-hearted little boy you really want to please, buy this movie and treat your small children. This film is great as a bedtime movie for happy dreams instead of nightmares. I'm happy with a movie that pleases my kid & doesn't need to impress the parents all the time.


I was shocked and surprised by the negative reviews I saw on the web, I thought Cinderella 2 (as well as 3) is a very cute and funny sequel for everyone - kids and adults...like me, I am 22 years old.

I also find it and very informative film, it shows lessons on being true to yourself and following your heart. I thought it has great animation, and the voice casting was very good; the songs performed by Brooke Allison too. Since this film has been divided into three flashbacks/stories, my favorite out of the three, is the story of when Jaq the mouse, became a human for a day, thanks to Fairy Godmother and her magic.


Just after I saw the movie, the true magic feeling of the Walt Disney movies came up in me and I realized me that it was a long time ago that I saw the 'real' magic in a movie.

The combination of the right music, speeches and magical effects brings the Disney feeling again into your body. Very special things I saw where the not-knowing effects in the movie, started with the disney logo transforming into the Cinderella castle and ended as an old-story telling fairytale with your grandparents.

The magic has returned in me. I rate this movie 8 out of 10.


As an adult I really did enjoy this one. I watched it with my 2 granddaughters and the 3 1/2 year old was fascinated and the 15 month old giggled at the mice.

The music is fun and the animation is wonderful. This sequel does what Return to Neverland didn't accomplish. A good follow-up to the Cinderella story; but what becomes of Drusilla? Another sequel? I hope so!


The sequel to the ever popular Cinderella story reminded me somewhat of what they did with one of the Beauty & the Beast movies. It's basically three short stories rolled into 1.

OK, the mice are adorable (I love Gus! He's sooo cute!), and Lucifer's awesome (as usual). I liked some of the newer characters as well, (Pom Pom was adorable and I did like Prudence.). Still, the storyline was somewhat limited, but still very cute. So, I vote 7/10.


Although Cinderella isn't the obvious choice for a sequel I love Jaq and Gus so I didn't hesitate. The format of the mice writing a book for Cinderella was an inspired one. I enjoy writing stories myself and hope children will be encouraged by this. The three stories are cute & amusing, although the songs were forgettable. Jaq and Gus were my favourite characters but I also enjoyed seeing Lucifer, Bruno, the Mice Chorus and all the rest. Pom Pom proved the perfect companion for Lucifer and I liked the Governess. A sequel done right for a change. My rating 8/10.


I thought this movie was a lot better than most movie critics are giving it credit for. Though it has its confusing parts of the plot, it doesn't greatly interfere with your understanding of the movie. That being said, If you're not open to more liberal political ideas, then this probably isn't the movie for you. I thought all the actors in the movie were outstanding. Each character has their funny moments and the audience at the Tribeca Film Festival was laughing throughout the whole thing. I thought the satire was a tad over the top in one particular area, but that's intentionally done. John Cusack is right in that although it's set in the future, it really makes you see the present.


Don't mistake "War Inc." for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge.


Joshua Seftel's first film - a satire of memorable proportions - is about just as the title suggests: The corporations effect on War.

The film is about a mercenary (John Cusack) traveling to Turaqistan (not a real country, fyi) to help the American government 'get their message across' to Turaqistan's leaders. He meets a reporter (Marisa Tomei) and we all know what will ensue with a lonely man + a hot reporter. Somewhere in the mix, a pop star named Yonica Babyyeah gets thrown in. As Yonica is marrying one of Turaquistan's most important people (a son of the president), a subplot is created where the mercenary must watch over this star, well, somewhat. The film starts off with a lonely Cusack in a bar; no more than fifteen seconds later, the film hooks you. With it's amusing and intriguing insight on terrorism and politics, the film's running time blows by you. The film has a lot more action than I expected, with the occasional scene of war, well choreographed fights and just sporadic scenes of murder. Though the story isn't much deep, the simplicity of it all makes the film perfect for both the common man and movie critics alike.

In the final act of the film, the simplicity of it all turns very hostile and jumbled. I thought it was executed very well, but other may disagree, and I could understand why. Twist after twist is what the ending is all about, and like most films, it is a true hit/miss situation. Regardless, the three writers on the film (Mark Leyner, Jeremy Pikser & John Cusack) did a fantastic job creating a realistic and entertaining satire on today's situation overseas.

Joshua Seftel does an excellent job insuring the film's integrity; not reducing the material to the most redundant of films (which I was afraid would happen). Seftel crafted the film as perfectly as one could: he created a vibrant atmosphere, one that is both examines harsh reality and cartoonish falsities; - contrasting them perfectly - as well as making the film feel as if you were watching it all. Seftel really gets you involved in all of the action and it pays off completely. No missteps here. Hopefully, he takes on more directorial jobs, for he is one director to look out for.


Let me start by saying that "War, Inc" is not everyone's cup of tea. It is, however, very enjoyable (and gets you thinking - "Oh, crap"). The comedy involved the film isn't obvious at all - it's quite subtle (Tamerlane tanks, dry-cleaning service etc), and it changes with the twists & turns in the plot.

I may be the only one, but I won't compare this with "Grosse Point Blank", because, it's different. John Cusack - I wouldn't say he was "amazing" or "brilliant" - but he was good. On the other hand, his sister (Joan Cusack) was incredible in her delivery of lines & comedic timing - even though she was hardly in the film (I'd say the same about Ben Kingsley).

Marisa Tomei plays a convincing reporter, and manages to pull it off. Hilary Duff is very commendable for her role as central Asian pop star Yonica Babyyeah. Duff's development as an actress is very noticeable in the film, and she does a very good job (even though her accent is a tad unreal).

Overall, the film is what I would call "entertaining". It doesn't have a particular storyline, and it's quite silly at times, but it does have a subtle message. I'd say it's worth a watch.


I don't want to spend to long here rambling about the plot- you've seen the trailer, and if you haven't its online. I don't recommend seeing it though- it was poorly crafted and didn't pack any of the laughs or magic from the film. So those avoiding this film due to its lousy trailer should give this one a chance. It's really funny. I was blown away by the cleverness and originality in this film. The first 40 minutes had me on the floor in hysterics- my only problem was that it unnecessarily evolved into a bad Austin Powers film in the final 20. This however, is one of the few films where the campy ending didn't make me dislike the rest of the film (which is normally the case). Everyone gives a great performance (especially Joan Cusack) and there are some really great moments throughout. I personally plan on seeing it again when it comes out- only to catch all the details which I was laughing over during the first viewing!


In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).

Assessing the technical aspects:

- The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.

- Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.

- Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).

- As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.

Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.

7/10.


The plot of this film might not be extraordinary, but what makes the film really special, are its characters (and the actors who play them  of course!). I won't go into the details of the plot of the movie, but I would certainly like to say this  This film is not just for everyone! The film is really witty and you need to be equally clever to get all the satire. If you're not alert even for a second, you'll probably end up missing one of the subtle points. The movie is full of such seemingly trivial but witty stuff - like the announcements going on in the background at Turaqistan, the advertisements on the tankers (which I almost missed) and it are these that make the movie hilarious throughout.

Coming to the actors, John Cusack has played his multi-faceted role very efficiently (what with him being the co-writer and the producer too) and he plays his character  Hauser, the killer with a heart  exquisitely. Cusack's done a similar kind of role before in Grosse Pointe Blank, but his comic disposition in the movie is simply superb.

However the actress who steals all the show is Hilary Duff! I have always been a huge fan of Ms. Duff. But to be honest I was a bit disappointed when I heard about the kind of role she's playing in the movie. But after watching the movie the disappointment gave way to great respect for her as an actor. Let's face it! The kid's growing, but yes, so is her talent! All those critics, who shouted hoarse that Hilary cannot act, will be silent for a while. Hilary had to play a really complex character  tough on the outside, yet a sweet child on the inside  and she's done complete justice to it. She makes you laugh, and she makes you cry  to cut the long story short ('cause I could go on raving about her for ever) she's BRILLIANT! Marisa Tomei and Joan Cusack have done a good job too. Especially, Joan's hysterics are uproarious! However, I was rather disappointed with Ben Kingsley being wasted in such a small role and his performance seemed lackluster.

In general War, Inc. keeps you on your toes throughout with its intelligent humor, and ends with just the right amount of twists in the plot. I would highly recommend this movie to all (and more so to Hilary Duff fans)!!! P.S. - I am really glad to hear the movie is going to break free of its limited release and release at other places soon!!!


this film needs to be seen. the truest picture of what is going on in the world that I've seen since Darwin's Nightmare. Go see it! and If you're lucky enough to have it open in your city, be sure to see it on the big screen instead of DVD. The writing is sharp and the direction is good enough for the ideas to come through, though hardly perfect. Joan Cusack is amazing, and the rest of the cast is good too. It's inspiring that John Cusack got this movie made, and, I believe, he had to use some of his own money to do it. It's a wild, absurd ride, obviously made without the resources it needed, but still succeeds. Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, SNL, even Bill Maher haven't shown the guts to say what this film says.


In War, Inc we find the logical extension of the current outsourcing of all war-related activities we are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are familiar with the antics of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root and Blackwater overseas you are already halfway home to fully appreciating the satire of Cusack's latest piece. Cusack plays a corporate hit-man named Brand Hauser who finds himself in Turiquistan organizing a trade show in the newly liberated country as his cover while waiting to get access to his latest target. While there he finds himself intrigued by the anti-establishment reporter played by Marisa Tomei and pursued by the over-sexualized pop star played by Hilary Duff. We are introduced to Hauser's past, which includes a tragedy that has haunted him ever since and the corporate assistant named Marsha Dillon who actually is running the entire operation for him (and played hilariously by Joan Cusack). While some moments are played suitably over the top, they aren't always the moments you expect and the little touches often catch you by surprise. All the principals turn in solid performances. Duff's accent comes and goes but otherwise she does a very nice job and goes a long way to dispel her Disney image. Tomei is funny but understated while the Cusack's own nearly every scene they are in. To be fair, they are given good material. The writers turn in a good script with enough twists and turns and visual gags to keep you giggling throughout all the way to the predictable conclusion. In fact, the predictability of the end is the only thing that keeps me from rating it higher as the story twists and turns it's way to the expected conclusion.

If you like your comedy broad and physical, there is probably not enough here to keep you interested the entire movie. On the other hand, if you like sly comedy and broad satire, this is for you.


This film definitely gets a thumbs up from me. It's witty jokes and even it's occasional stereotypical and derogatory views on Eastern European people had me in stitches throughout most of the film. It's plot is clever and 100% original and will have you guessing throughout the entire film. The one person I was most impressed with in this film was Hilary Duff. It's plain and simple to see that she has taken a leap of faith stepped outside of the 'chick-flick' genre she's used to. Her accent is excellent and her acting performance was surprisingly crisp and well-executed. It is the best performance I have ever seen from Hilary, and I have seen most of her films. Her character, Yonica Babyyeah is described as 'The Britney Spears of Eastern Europe' and this is seen in some of her mannerisms and the song, 'I want to blow you... ... ... up'. You also feel sorry for her, as her performance really grasps you, Yonica is a very complex and confused character. Joan Cusack had me laughing throughout the whole film with her sometimes slapstick humour, but also her facial expressions and so on. John Cusack's witty dialogue will probably make you chuckle throughout. I strongly recommend this film.


On this 4th of July weekend it's heartening to see the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive and well in the film "War, Inc." Just as our founding fathers gave the back of their collective hand to King George III, this film exposes in hilarious fashion the craven war-profiteering by the current crop of capitalistic creeps who are intent on indecently privatizing the government, to include privatizing war itself.

The cast in this satire absolutely shines. John Cusack is wonderful as a droll, conflicted corporate assassin, and the beautiful Marisa Tomei is superb as his love interest. (My gosh, "George Costanza" was right. Marisa Tomei is so attractive!) But it is John's sister Joan Cusack who really steals the film. Her portrayal of a bossy, yet simultaneously sycophantic, personal assistant is priceless, and more than once I just couldn't stop laughing at the brilliance of her performance. She not only possesses fantastic comic timing, her face is as expressive as one could ever wish for in an actor. Dan Ackroyd, too, has a short, but very effective, cameo in the film as the head of the company which is running the war, the Tamerlane Corporation. Sitting on a "throne" with his pants down around his ankles, Ackroyd even looks like the arse clown who currently occupies one of our real thrones of power. You won't have to think too hard to recognize that person. Much of this movie was filmed in Bulgaria, which is why we are able to see so much real military equipment. (You just know that the US military would never have cooperated in making this satiric expose of war-profiteering.) I especially enjoyed the character of "Omar Sharif" as played by the Bulgarian actor Lyubomir Neikov. In one scene in which he is on the dance floor with Marisa Tomei he has a couple of lines that could summarize our entire foreign policy attitude toward the foreign leaders we install - and uninstall - in power.

Naturally, this film won't appeal to everyone. If you believe that the on-going privatization of our foreign policy, the military, intelligence collection and analysis, prisons and the corrections system, public health, and a myriad of other government services is a good thing you may not find much to like in this film. If you believe, however, that destroying people and countries in order to add to some corporation's bottom line is an abomination I think you'll find much to appreciate in this film. Nothing could be more in keeping with the Spirit of Independence that heaping well-deserved ridicule on corrupt powers that be.


Brand Hauser (John Cusack) is an assassin for the CIA. He is ordered to go to the country of Turaquistan, a nation that the United States has "liberated", and kill a businessman named Omar Shariff. This is because the American conglomerate, Tamerlane, that is putting the country "back together" will not stand for Shariff, an oil man from a neighboring state, laying down his own pipeline through war-torn Turquistan. But, once there, Brand runs into difficulties. One, he meets a determined journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei) who wants to tell the American public the "true" story of the region's conflict...and of Tamerlane. But, Brand is aghast to realize that Natalie's pretty face and sharp mind instantly and unconsciously compels him to lose focus on his mission. Also, his cover as a trade show host forces him to meet the country's pop-singing princess, Yonica (Hillary Duff), who will be getting married at the convention center. She is a young diva whose wedding arrangements also turn Brand's attention away from the coming assassination. With other inept underlings and complications, will Brand be able to carry out his mission, for the satisfaction of Tamerlane's BIG boss, the former vice-president (Dan Ackroyd)? Good for you, John Cusack, to make this film, even though it doesn't quite hold together. Shot in Serbia, it is a worthy look at what present-day Iraq must be like, a country turned upside-down. In a stroke a brilliance, the green zone here is called "The Emerald City" and aptly so, for this Oz-like neighborhood attempts to keep out the ravages of war going on elsewhere in the metropolis. The cast is very fine, with Cusack doing a nice job and Tomei, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Ackroyd and others backing him up in style. Duff, especially, does a great turn as the heavily-accented, heavily made-up, potty-mouthed singer. The recreation of war-riddled Baghdad is so real that it hurts while the costumes and other production values are top-notch. As for the script, it isn't always cohesive but it certainly has some tremendous dialogue and scenes. For example, a young Turaqui boy offers to show Brand an enemy hideout, in exchange for money and candy. Brand produces the cash but, because he has no candy, the boy burns his vehicle anyway. Brilliant! Then, also, the direction is not a total success but doesn't lag very often. No, if you have conservative leanings, you probably won't like this film one bit. But, if you have an open mind and want to see a satirical view of the "war on terrorism", this is quite a good show. Therefore, do make an effort to view it, as you will be supporting those filmmakers who choose to make movies far away from those old studio "formulas".


first, someone mentioned here that because this was released in "limited" quantity it means that it SHOULD be bad...that is exactly what the "big five" Hollywood studios would like everyone to think so they can "pass" or "ignore" features that are not desirable, without loosing face or imagine by censoring them directly. to the point, this production has been released "limited" because is considered "unpatriotic" by certain individuals.

now i absolutely loved this feature; i find it way better then "Charlie Wilson's War" even if it is a "fictional" account of something that "never" happens but is always so OBVIOUS.this goes to anyone and everyone interested or affected by present American foreign policies, "home" or "aboard". the "turakistan" country and "the emerald city" are definitely trying to resemble Iraq and Baghdad just as much as the corporation "Tamerlane" goes for "haliburton" (with the vice- president Dan Aykroyd playing Dick Cheney, LOL).there are quiet a moments actually where the movie is DEAD SERIOUS, not even sarcastic anymore (main example would be as how John Cusack character deals with his depression, but not only).

i found that ALL the characters can be related to something/someone or specific stereotypes. now word of advise; if YOU are not politically active, especially towards the aspects of "globalization" , you will likely not enjoy this feature much since most of its content and inside "jokes" are targeting certain "personalities" that are not "visibile" to the general public on daily bases...(main exception would be Hilary Duff that plays the well known materialistic pop star, need i say name(S)?). at its CORE the feature is an anti-globalization gig, period. the message is unmistakeably delivered with comic vengeance. Joan has a line at one point that goes like this: "and here we have a book written by you know who, about how i conquered the world and resolved the issues with my dad".PRICELESS)))

the sister and brother Cusacks play good together as always, same as in "Grosse PointeBlank" i would say a bit more "mature".Marisa Tomeihere does not show her butt and breasts to "impress" us (like she did recently in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"), but instead she has a very serious role, and manages to pull it off quiet well.

many critics don't get it (can not do so, or do not want to). this IS NOT a "regular" movie but more of a comic documentary. this feature stands to deliver a message and NOT to get Oscars, or have "visuals" sort of getting the viewer into buying the latest "HDTV experience" TV sets...i have noticed even in my local papers that this movie gets bad re-views because is not "artistic", while PRO Iraq war movies get good thumbs up for being "balanced" apparently and "engaging".makes one wonders how much all the world mainstream media is concentrated in the hands of a bunch of guys...

i bet this feature will prove a hit overseas as much more then it will in north America. as i mentioned before, it is all a satire about American foreign policy and how it has been hijacked by "special interests" groups... having the "regular" American soldier wearing the "Tamerlane" corporate logo on its combat dress is pretty insulting BUT EFFECTIVE in showing reality as it IS, or will be soon the way things go so far.

some PRICELESS shots: upon "liberation", the country gets invaded commercial advertisements; a hilarious scene about how future journalists will likely gather "news"("anything is got to be better then this x-box bullocks"))); soldiers dealing with their "frustration";

overall, i do not recommend this to "conservatives" or "hard core" patriots of some kind or another.this feature is not made to reach to the "minds of souls" of the people(as mainstream propaganda and commercial interests always try to do so).instead it contains a message well defined for realists, and towards some ideological goals apparently "always" short of realizing.


WAR, INC. (2008) **1/2 John Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd, Sergej Trifunovic, Lyubomir Neikov, Ned Bellamy, (Voice of: Montel Williams)

A hit-and-miss-21st Century "STRANGELOVE"

John Cusack  who co-wrote the script with Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser  stars as a jaded hit-man named Brand Hauser who is burnt out but decides to follow thru on one final assignment by icing a Middle-Eastern oil minister named Omar Sharif (yes, not THAT Omar Sharif but you get the tone here from this misfire for a laugh) commandeered by the ex-Vice President of The USA (Aykroyd, Cusack's old "Grosse Pointe Blank" co-hort, doing a mean Dick Cheney manqué turn here), enlisting Brand to do the deed under the guise of a Trade Show Producer in mythical Turaqistan (read: Iraq/Afghanistan) for the American private corporation Tamerlane (read: Halliburton).

While being briefed Brand is faced with a moment of clarity when he comes across intrepid journalist Natalie Hegalhuzen (Tomei) and eventually falls in love with her.

Meanwhile Tamerlane is sponsoring the unlikely union of Eastern European teen sensation Yonica Babyyeah (a surprisingly decent Duff aping her own celebrity with tongue- through-cheek) and the idiot son of the country's leader.

What follows is a bold attempt for a 21st Century black comedy a la "DR. STRANGELOVE" but for all intense and purposes there are sadly more misses than hits in this broad try for laughs amidst political message (an unjust war being outsourced by American capitalism, check!)

While Cusack riffs on his Martin Blank from the aforementioned "Pointe" he does add some nice touches of his man in black (he does shots of Tabasco sauce to take the edge off), the rest of the cast plays catch up (except sister Joan who is a riot as the high-strung aide- de-camp for Hauser and has one of the film's funniest laugh-out lines: "My mass communications skills are finally paying off") for the most part.

Cusack visited the Iraq War earlier this year in the 180 degree different "Grace Is Gone" and here he allows his political views wear on his sleeve ; while admirable overall the film's pace and rhythms are off largely no-thanks to first time filmmaker Joshua Seftel making his directorial debut here (and it is noticeable) except for maybe the well-choreographed fight Hauser is involved with Babyyeah's idiotic fiancé's entourage.

A nice attempt yet a misguided failure ; maybe next time Cusack won't try so hard and let the idiocy of war speak for itself instead of doing the heavy lifting by himself.


This movie was excellent for the following reasons: 1) It contained great backdrops and sets. 2) It showed the disparity of a war-torn environment alongside a technological one. 3) John Cusack's acting was terrific. He portrayed angst very well. 4) It showed the vulnerabilities of everyone in a war-torn situation. 5) It gave us a picture of what might happen in the future in many respects. I was also impressed with the acting for the most part. Hilary's acting was, I found, the most stilted. The morals and values of everyone in a war-torn situation are up for grabs. The liberal journalist and the conservative business man are capable of doing anything in any situation and are equally unpredictable. Great stuff. PSP


I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie


After reading several comments, I felt I had to add in my two cents as well. "Sorrow Lost" is one of the most memorable shorts I think I have ever seen. I had gotten the chance to see this at the New York Independent Film Festival. I felt that this movie was incredibly beautiful and emotional. The story was beautifully complex - especially for such a short amount of time. The story is focused on a young girl who is victimized by her abusive father. She is soon given the choice to "stop" him by a demon played by "Witchblade's Eric Etebari." Having watched the show, I was amazingly impressed with how he played such unique and different character. I never knew he could act so well! His character was deeply complex and he was very persuasive. The acting was absolutely superb by him. The girl's was okay and the father's was decent. There is also death in this who follows the girl around until she is able to escape from her future. The effects and cinematography were absolutely mind blowing. I wonder if they had at least a hundred thousand budget for this. It is rare you get to see such a high quality short. The opening was absolutely breathtaking comparable with any major feature film. This isn't to say that it's not without its flaws - I thought it took a little to get going and the intro was a little long. But this stuck in my head days after watching it. There are very few shorts with this level of quality.


What do I say about such an absolutely beautiful film? I saw this at the Atlanta, Georgia Dragoncon considering that this is my main town. I am very much a sci-fi aficionado and enjoy action type films. I happened to be up all night and was about ready to call it a day when I noticed this film playing in the morning. This is not a sci-fi nor action film of any sort. Let me just start out by saying that I am not a fan of Witchblade nor of Eric Etebari, having watched a few episodes(his performance in that seemed stale and robotic). But he managed to really win me over in this performance. I mean really win me over. Having seen Cellular, I did not think there was much in the way of acting for this guy. But his performance as Kasadya was simply amazing. He was exceedingly convincing as the evil demon. But there was so much in depth detail to this character it absolutely amazed me. I later looked it up online and found that Eric won the Best Actor award which is well deserved considering its the best of his career and gained my respect. Now I keep reading about the fx of this and production of this project and let me just say that I did not pay attention to them (sorry Brian). They were very nicely done but I was even more impressed with the story - which I think was even more his goal(Seeing films like Godzilla with huge effects just really turned me off). I could not sleep after this film thinking it over and over again in my head. The situation of an abusive family is never an easy one. I showed the trailer to my friend online and she almost cried because it affected her so having lived with abuse. This is one film that I think about constantly and would highly recommend.


I got to see this just this last Friday at the Los Angeles film festival at Laemlee's on Beverly. This movie got the most applause of all the films that evening. Considering that two music videos opened first, I didn't know what to expect since they were very fast and attention grabbing, I wasn't sure I was ready for a short immediately. But to my surprise I really enjoyed this. I thought the main actor demon guy was really good. I was so impressed with his performance that I checked out his name. I was surprised to see that this was the Witchblade guy. He's gotten really good especially since then! Either that or he was given lousy roles or had been pushed by the director really hard for this short. The girl did an okay job. I guess its hard since it was her first performance and being so young. The dad did well also. There was a lot of really nice cg work for a short, both for this and the short playing next "Mexican Hat" which was also nice, but I enjoyed this the most because it had the most depth and emotion and I actually cared about the characters. The other was a very simple story. The story was quite illustrative and dark! It dealt with real topics using a more fantasy like approach to keep ADD people like me interested. We won't even talk about the last film in the block which I left. My only complaint is that I only wish I had seen more of the demon character and a little less of getting started, which is why I gave it a 9 out of 10. I also thought the end credits went a little slowly. Otherwise it was beautifully told, directed and edited. The timing was very nice with a complete change from the fast MTV editing done on everything nowadays. There will be more coming from this director in the future as well as the actor. I now will think of him as the Sorrows Lost actor not the Witchblade guy.


When you typically watch a short film your always afraid that the person creating the film tries to throw too much into it. That's not the case with this one. A great story about a young girl who's had enough and other worldly forces trying to help make things right.

Eric Etebari does a wonderful job of representing the spirit of twisted justice and helps to convey the complexities of the blurred line of right and wrong.

Both the young girl and the father give great performances in this wonderful short film, but Eric's performance is definitely the show stealer in this story.

I definitely recommend this film for it's complexity, performance, and great over all story.


After several extremely well ratings to the point of SUPERB, I was extremely pleased with the film. The film was dark, moving, the anger, the pain, the guilt and a very extremely convincing demon.

I had initially expected to see many special effects, and like a lover's caress, it blew me away with the subtlety and the rightness of it. Brian, I am again blown away with your artistry with the telling of the story and your care of the special effects. You will go a long way, my friend. I will definitely be the president of your fan club.

Eric Etebari, the best actor award, was the number one choice. You made Jr. Lopez look like a child compared to Kasadya. :)

Overall, the acting, story line, the high quality filming and awesome effects, it was fantastic. I just wish it were longer. I am looking forward to The Dreamless with extremely high expectations.


This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO)


This film is an absolute classic for camp. That is why it was an Elvira and MST3000 classic. Everyone knows the story. Scientist keeps his girlfriend's head alive in a lasagna pan in his basement while he cruises town and tries to find her a body by checking out the local chicks. Finally he finds a real hourglass body with a scar-faced chick's head on top. The severed head makes friends with the failed experiment in the closet and the conehead comes out of the closet and rips off the assistant's remaining "good" arm (his other is not right from a scientist's earlier failure), and the whole place burns down.

The movie scared us so much as kids that my friend wouldn't go into his basement for a year after seeing it. As kids we ranked the scariest movies of all time and this one was number four. Only one of those scary movies was really any good (the Original "The Haunting".)

I had to give this movie a seven rating for the tremendous amount of entertainment value it offers. Its eerie effect because of the crappy production and the weird sexual angle when the scientist looks for the bodies (complete with porno sound track) scares the hell out of innocent children, while the ridiculous aspects make it prime material for watching talking and laughing. I could watch this film tonight and enjoy it while I'd rather go to the Dentist than watch "Chicago" again.

Seven is the most I can give it, because its entertainment value is mere luck. The film , as cinema, is a disaster.


THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE was considered so distasteful in 1959 that several cuts and the passage of three years was required before it was released in 1962. Today it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have taken the thing seriously even in 1959; the thing is both lurid and lewd, but it is also incredibly ludicrous in a profoundly bumptious sort of way.

The story, of course, concerns a doctor who is an eager experimenter in transplanting limbs--and when his girl friend is killed in a car crash he rushes her head to his secret lab. With the aid of a few telephone cords, a couple of clamps, and what looks very like a shallow baking pan, he brings her head back to life. But is she grateful? Not hardly. In fact, she seems mightily ticked off about the whole thing, particularly when it transpires that the doctor plans to attach her head to another body.

As it happens, the doctor is picky about this new body: he wants one built for speed, and he takes to cruising disconcerted women on city sidewalks, haunting strip joints, visiting body beautiful contests, and hunting down cheesecake models in search of endowments that will raise his eyebrow. But back at the lab, the head has developed a chemically-induced psychic link with another one of the doctor's experiments, this one so hideous that it is kept locked out of sight in a handy laboratory closet. Can they work together to get rid of the bitter and malicious lab assistance, wreck revenge upon the doctor, and save the woman whose body he hankers for? Could be! Leading man Jason Evers plays the roguish doctor as if he's been given a massive dose of Spanish fly; Virginia Leith, the unhappy head, screeches and cackles in spite of the fact that she has no lungs and maybe not even any vocal chords. Busty babes gyrate to incredibly tawdry music, actors make irrational character changes from line to line, the dialogue is even more nonsensical than the plot, and you'll need a calculator to add up the continuity goofs. On the whole THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE comes off as even more unintentionally funny than an Ed Wood movie.

Director Joseph Green actually manages to keep the whole thing moving at pretty good clip, and looking at the film today it is easy to pick out scenes that influenced later directors, who no doubt saw the thing when they were young and impressionable and never quite got over it. The cuts made before the film went into release are forever lost, but the cuts made for television have been restored in the Alpha release, and while the film and sound quality aren't particularly great it's just as well to recall that they probably weren't all that good to begin with.

Now, this is one of those movies that you'll either find incredibly dull or wildly hilarious, depending on your point of view, so it is very hard to give a recommendation. But I'll say this: if your tastes run to the likes of Ed Wood or Russ Meyers, you need to snap this one up and now! Four stars for its cheesy-bizarreness alone! GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties.


This movie scared heck out of me when I was just a kid. It's no "Citizen Kane" but it has its moments. The arm ripping scene is good. The plot is good even if characters aren't - could have something to do with the acting. Put some top name people in the roles and then see what you get. This was one of those shoot, edit (what little there was) and distribute in a couple of months type of movies. This is classic low budget sci-fi and deserves it just due. I rated it a 9 based other films of this genre and age.


When I was young I had seen very few movies. My parents in all their wisdom rented this one. I was very wary of what the movie was about, in fact I wasn't even allowed to watch it. My brother and sister got to of course and this made me very angry. So what did I do? Late at night I trashed the VCR! Kicked the screen of the TV in and called the police and reported vandals. I was arrested of course, I was unable to get my foot out of the TV set before the police arrived. I was only given a stern talking to and sent home. My parents grounded me of course and made me work to repay the debt for the TV and VCR. This tore me apart, slave labour really sucks believe me, but I had to do it. Chores all around the house. What happened in the end? We got a big screen TV, DVD player and a surround sound system for my work. How did I get the money? Easy I made movies of my own and sold them to Disney! Do you remember Finding Neno? Well I wrote that movie and filmed my goldfish in their fish tanks! They rewrote the plot of course and did it in CGI because they couldn't afford to make it a real life action picture like I had done! In the end I never saw the film The Head that didn't die and the rating I gave it is my life rating! It's doing pretty good!


I love buying those cheap, lousy DVD's from Alpha Video. One day, I happened to buy this one. It's the perfect silly science fiction film of the 50's, all sexed up. Replete with unscientific EVERYTHING, scantily clad girls and plenty of melodrama, it's an enjoyable film, to those who appreciate this kind of stuff. And if you can 'suspend your disbelief' enough, you can actually get creeped out-- not just by the psychotic head or by the beating of the thing in the closet, but toward the end, with the character of 'the perfect body'. It's so . . . . what's another word for mindf***ing?


This was a very good movie and is absolutely unfair to judge it without taking into account the time when it was released. There are some movies which do not get older but this is clearly out of date. However, I saw this film when I was a boy and for more than twenty years both the images as the story were unforgettable for me and most of my friends, until we could appreciate it again on DVD. Actually, I do remember this movie as the topic of several chats and meetings where old boys were talking about things we have in common. Therefore there was a little feeling of disappoint and even sadness when we finally had the DVD. Firstly, there was a theory about how naives our generation was. Secondly, I think there is something more. I would asset that this movie has something which should be interesting for all the modern film makers, specifically those who focus on the decaying horror genre. This is the mutilation, the idea which gives coherence to the film; the fact of a human being mutilated produces a deeper horror than death and torture. I remember how sick the sensation was, when the monster rip Kurt's arm out. And at the end; when the creature bites the doctor's neck to take a piece of his veins. Another remarkable thing is the morbid atmosphere which prevails without decaying in intensity through all the scenes, no matter if the action is on a secret lab, a lonely street where the man in a car is looking for a female body, a striper dressing room, and so on. May be the reasons why it is not longer a good movie are just technical things. For example, in the scene of the accident and the man saving his fiancée's head a more accurate work, made for another and modern second unit director could be interesting. Same thing with all action scenes, including the one of Kurt's arm. Furthermore, something could be done with the monster's make up. Some remakes have been good; I think in this case an attempt would worth while. Nevertheless, the black and white tones should be conserved.