This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike "Yes", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.

Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.

But the film's title is "Ghosts", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Françoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Françoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.

Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.

And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. "Marie is dead," concludes Françoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a "niña", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain.


I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.

It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations.

Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all.


"Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.

Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.

The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.

Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.


"Gespenster" Question of to be cool in the German cinema

There are not many German films in the last ten years, who have made me so interest. Yes, the problem of the most German films are in this film "Gespenster" too. He is on some places to uncooked to be good to see. Special the figure of Toni (Sabine Timento) is too cool. But thats is in German films always so. Everybody must to learns this coolneß - is the realism in this films. Thats difficult to understand. But in this case it makes some sense, because she steals and she lies - she is the kind of girl is better you never love it, because you lose it. Thats not clear for the other girl Nina in this film. She love her - and she would lose her. But Nina lost everything. She will play with soft emotion and a sad feeling. There is no way - but you must take it said Herbert Achterbusch for twenty years. Thats so often the way it goes in German films. Why? Nina (Julia Hummer) is not inside of the laws of society - the is outside - and there she have no chance. This films tries not on every place to gave her a part inside. Thats one of the problems - the stupid break with conventions - the criminal fascination. Throw it all away - and go nowhere! But the actress plays this difficult part very interesting. On the other side - there the parents - who are the pendant to the two girls. The have a car - a hotel suite - the have money and live in world with music of the opera. But the film stand always in some distance to seem. There is no much explaining of them.

In the center of this film, there is one scene you will never forget. The two girls got to a casting. And there they should say how they find together. In this scene Toni will lying on. She said a fantastic story-has nothing to do with her. And then Nina will say the truth. She said it in an introversion way. There is no exhibition in it. She looks to the bottom and said what will happened for here. Thats a great moment. In the next scene on the party with pictures in red this feeling is going on- than Toni goes away...

Okay, The film will end - in the German way of coolneß - rubbish - here the circle of sadness is closing. But there was a moment - where is happening something else - and this moment was important. He is more than German coolneß - and this moments are rare in the German cinema in this time!


EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.

A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.

We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.

The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.

Grady Harp


"El Mar" directed by Catalonian director Agusti Villarona, and based on the novel by Blai Bonet, offers a glimpse of the Spanish history as seen by a Balearic author that takes the viewer back to the days of the civil war in that country. The movie concentrates on three friends, and follows them from those early days during the onset of the war in Majorca, to a few years later as two of those friends meet again when they are at a sanatorium, lost in the countryside.

We first meet three boys that are playing happily. Not everything is what it seems. The tragic death of one of them points out about the cruelty of the one that commits the evil deed. The boys have excluded a young girl, about their age, from taking part in their games.

When we meet the adult Ramallo again, he is on his way to a sanatorium. He seems to be suffering from tuberculosis. To his surprise, Manuel Tur, one of his boyhood friends is also being treated, and the young girl that was not welcomed to participate in their games is now one of the nuns that supervise their health care. It is obvious that Tur looks at Ramallo in a way that only means he is in love with the tough bully. Their relationship will have devastating consequences.

Roger Casamajor does a good job with portraying the older Ramallo. Bruno Bergonzino makes an impression as Tur, the vulnerable youth. Antonia Torrens plays Sor Francisca with conviction. Angela Molina, puts an appearance as Carmen, the wife of the caretaker of the institution. Simon Andreu is perfect as Alcantara.

"El Mar" is a dark film that clearly shows Agusti Villarona's talents in making the novel come alive for the viewer.


This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.

This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.


I saw "El Mar" yesterday and thought it to be a great movie. It starts with a childhood episode in the life of the 3 main characters: Ramallo, Manuel Tur, and Francisca. After that we jump about 10 years to an hospital where the 3 friends meet again.

Religion, sickness, love, violence and sexuality rage throughout the movie creating and intense and tension-filled movie.

I see people complaining about the film being too gory and i think they missed the point of the story. It's a violent, intense and sad story. People are expected to suffer. To cry. To get hurt. To bleed. And i think that what the film shows, isn't done for pure shock-value or presented in a distasteful way. I know that some people like their films "clean", even those with violence in it. But sometimes, a movie needs to make you feel unconfortable to work. This is one of those movies. And a great movie it is.

The only fault i found was that there were 3 or 4 moments were some plot details weren't 100% clear, and only after thinking about them at the end of the movie, it all made sense. But it wasn't anything of much importance to the overall story, so i still give this movie a 9.


Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography.


The latest film by the Spanish director Agusti Villaronga is a study on how children that experience violence and isolation within their remote community, develop into troubled young adults that need certain psychic tools to deal with their hidden mental frailty. Whether these tools are religion followed to a fanatical level, caring for others or simply putting on a macho image whilst engaging as a male-prostitute, Villaronga creates a successful examination of how these vices affect three teenagers living in Spain under Franco. The three witness the disturbing double death or their friends before they are teenagers and subsequently bury the emotions they feel with their peers frail corpses until they meet again once more at a hospital for those suffering form tuberculosis.

The cinematic style of the text is typically visually opulent as you would expect from the Spanish auteur and is extremely reminiscent of fellow Spaniard Pedro Almodovar's work with themes dealing with sexual desire, both heterosexual and homosexual. An element that is different between the two directors is that Villaronga favours a supernatural undertone spliced with claustrophobic, gritty realism opposed to Almodovar's use of surrealism, although both styles are similar.

The piece gives an insight into troubled young psyche and contains disturbing violence and scenes of a sexual nature. I highly recommend watching this film as it contains elements that will remain with the audience for a considerable period after viewing.


If you want to learn something about the Spanish Civil War and about all the political details and intrigues, let me tell you, you've chosen the wrong film.

This is a vision of the war as it happened in Majorca, a small island off the coast of Spain. When a war like this happens in a small island that takes position for the traitor almost at once, there is no war in the open. The soldiers are sent to the front to fight, in the mainland, while another kind of war happens at home, on the small island. There, neighbours tell on other neighbours, sometimes because their political views are contrary to the new regime, but many people are told on because of old family fights, or maybe the silent introvert who has no friends is told on by someone who wants to "earn some points". And these things don't happen in the open. There were some trials, true, but many other times people would just be woken up in the middle of the night, taken out of their homes to the closest cemetery where they would be killed. And the next morning the bodies would be found, and people would have an idea of what had happened, but nobody would dare to speak or to do anything. We're not talking about soldiers killing someone they had never seen in their life. We're talking about people killing their neighbours, and probably saying hello to their widow the next day, and even attending the funeral for the guy they had killed. We're talking about villages with one or two thousand inhabitants, where everybody knew everybody.

I am from that small island and I've heard the stories my grandparents told me, and I must say that this film upset me, oh yes, it did; but I also found it remarkably beautiful and moving. The initial violence is not something the director or the writer made up, that's how things happened during that war. A kid knowing that his mate's dad is in the fascist squad that killed his dad? Completely possible. All that happened later on? Possible too. TB was real too. At that time my island was not the holiday resort it has become. People were poor, illiterate, and worked in small farms. After the war there were times of hardship.

So, you won't find a war story in this film, or at least not the kind of war story you expect. There are no battlefields, no soldiers, no political intrigues. This is the meanest kind of war, which happens when the space is limited (just check the size of the island), when neighbours fight with their neighbours, when members of the same family fight each other, and they live in a place where everybody knows everybody. You'll find a story about the damage that this particular kind of war can cause to people and the story of how they survive that damage, or maybe they don't.

I must mention the excellent work done by the writers who adapted the novel and by all the actors, who managed to sound really Majorcan. That was remarkable.


Like his earlier film, "In a Glass Cage", Agustí Villaronga achieves an intense and highly poetic canvas that is even more refined visually than its predecessor. This is one of the most visually accomplished and haunting pictures one could ever see. The heightened drama, intensity and undertone of violence threatens on the the melodramatic or farcical, yet never steps into it. In that way, it pulls off an almost impossible feat: to be so over-the-top and yet so painfully restrained, to be so charged and yet so understated, and even the explosives finales are virtuosic feasts of the eye. Unabashed, gorgeous, and highly tense... this film is simply superb!


The stories in this video are very entertaining, and it definately is worth a look! The first one concerns a young couple harrassed in the woods by two rednecks, with a great, but unexplained twist at the end.

The seond is the best of the lot, and it alone, makes this worth watching - A man is attacked by a dog, which he fears to be rabid - He finds shelter in what appears to be a hospital, but he finds out the employees there are not exactly what they appear to be...... Great twist at the end, and this episode alone scores 10/10! If the others were up to par with this one, this would get 10/10!

The third is the weakest of the bunch - A girl meets with some guys and has wild sex! There appears to be no point to the story until the end, with a good little twist, but it is spoiled by the awful first part!

Never the less, this is a great movie that will not do you wrong at all! Well worth a rental!


I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends!


Sequel to "The Kingdom" is bloodier and even more twisted. I only saw half (I was exhausted and couldn't sit through all 5 1/2 hours) but I loved what I saw. Ghosts, blood, murder, poisoning, mutated babies, voodoo...this has it all! If you have a strong stomach and like weird movies this is for you.

Also, you don't have to see Part 1 to understand this...you'll figure it out!

Does anyone know if Kingdom 1 and 2 are available on DVD? Sitting through these marathon movies in a theatre is tiring.

Sadly, there probably won't be a "Kingdom 3"--Ernst-Hugo Jaregard (Sig) died a year after this was filmed. But you never know!


Wow... 5 more hours of Riget. Lars continues the great combination of occult, dark horror and soap-opera drama. Picking up exactly where the last episode of the previous series left off(complete with the same high intensity and suspense, though that doesn't last; for better or worse), this installation in the franchise seems somewhat more bent on haste... in the last series, there seemed to pass a day or a week between each episode, whereas in this, it clearly is one long stretch... where one episode ends, the next begins. A lot can be said about Lars von Trier... but he is very diverse and pretty eccentric. Both qualities show in this. The plot continues its excellence, now giving a few regular characters that were minor players in the previous four episodes more attention. Basically every character from the first returns, at least as far as the main roles go. The pacing isn't as sharp as in the first part, and I found myself less gripped by this one. That is not in any kind of way to say that this didn't involve me, though... I still found myself constantly watching, and at several points reacting strongly, often out loud, to what was going on(extremely unusual behavior for me, as I am an incredibly silent person), as I also was during the first. Like the first, this also brings up some loaded ethical questions. Building on the foundation from the first, this brings the story further... and being a sequel, the scope is also bigger. Grander. More spirits, more bizarre occurrences, more subplots. The strong graphic material of the first also returns, and it's been kicked up a notch. The characters are developed further. The acting is amazing, as that of the first. Udo Kier solidifies his immense talent, to anyone who doubted it. Playing a very difficult character(anyone who has seen the first series can most likely figure out what I mean) *and* acting in a language he didn't speak(he was later dubbed)... and still handing in such a strong performance. The cinematography remains great, and is still very hand-held, with rapid zooms and the occasional long take. The editing is sharp, with a few direct cuts in sound(though these were more prominent in the first). Now, with all that said, I would really like to be able to rate this a perfect 10... or at least just under, like the first four episodes. I truly enjoyed watching, and I don't regret it in the least. But this does have shortcomings... the ones the first part had and more. As the first, the humor just takes up too much space... and this time around, it's even worse. There are several new regular characters that are there for no other reason than to provide comic relief... three of them, no less. Scenes are set up and executed for no other reason than to make the audience laugh. Fine for a comedy, but what is it doing in such a dark and unpleasant, yes, nothing short of sadistic at times, horror piece? Helmer's solitary secret hiding place of solitude is changed from the hospital roof... from which he could see his beloved Sweden... to a bathroom. With an angle from inside the bowl. No, you read that right. In general, the humor seems more low-brow... more sex and bodily function jokes, which, again, begs the question "Why?". Whilst most of the writing is excellent, some of it is downright dire. Several scenes are basically copied from the first mini-series(one would guess due to their popularity when it aired). At times, the drama seems a bit more bombastic than that of the first, and it jumps too much at times. Fortunately seldom, but still noticeably, plot points and items are explained away too easily(a certain character living in Denmark for no apparent reason, for example... anyone who's seen it knows who I'm speaking of). The two dishwashers, while still mysterious and insightful, become too much of a gimmick... too overexposed, in the end, I guess. Most of the scenes with them are still enjoyable, though. In addition to that, I want to reassure any reader of this that in spite of all the negative things I have just written that this is still mostly good... definitely enjoyable, compelling, powerful... and in my humble opinion, it should definitely be seen by anyone who liked the first(though if belong in that group; do not expect to feel that the story is finished after watching this any more than you did after the first). I recommend this to any fan of Lars von Trier and anyone who enjoyed the first Riget and wants more where that came from. I urge anyone who's even considering watching this to make sure you've seen all of the first before you do... I bought this before I bought the first, but I held out on watching until I had bought the first and watched that, and I can't tell you how glad I am that I did. Though this features a brief summary of the events in the first, there are an immense amount of details and aspects that you would miss out on if you didn't see it before watching this. Slightly lesser sequel, but definitely still one to watch if you liked the first. 8/10


Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.

We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.

This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.

The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.

Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.

Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.

The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.

All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss.


Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. ***


More eeriness and dark secrets released in the final parts of Lars Von Trier's fantastic horror satire The Kingdom... Much more is revealed and the ending just leaves you begging for more. Plus a great performance from Udo Kier in a more substantial role...


Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.

These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.

The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital.


First of all, Riget is wonderful. Good comedy and mystery thriller at the same time. Nice combination of strange 'dogma' style of telling the story together with good music and great actors. But unfortunately there's no 'the end'. As for me it's unacceptable. I was thinking... how it will be possible to continue the story without Helmer and Drusse? ...and I have some idea. I think Lars should make RIGET III a little bit different. I'm sure that 3rd part without Helmer wouldn't be the same. So here's my suggestion. Mayble little bit stupid, maybe not. I know that Lars likes to experiment. So why not to make small experiment with Riget3? I think the only solution here is to create puppet-driven animation (like for example "team America" by Trey Parker) or even computer 3d animation. I know it's not the same as real actors, but in principle I believe it could work... only this way it's possible to make actors alive again. For Riget fans this shouldn't be so big difference - if the animation will be done in good way average 'watcher' will consider it normal just after first few shots of the movie. The most important thing now is the story. It's completely understandable that it's not possible to create Riget 3 with the actors nowadays. So why not to play with animation? And... look for the possibilities that it gives to you! Even marketing one! Great director finishes his trilogy after 10 years using puppet animation. Just dreams?

I hope to see Riget 3 someday... or even to see just the script. I'm curious how the story ends... and as I expect- everybody here do.

greets, slaj

ps: I'm not talking about the "kingdom hospital" by Stephen King ;-)


I don't understand why the other comments focus on McConaughey. He has never been a very interesting film actor.

The best part of this movie is the writing and the wit. Alfred Molina and Patrick McGaw make an unusual comic duo, definitely not stock types. Although one can't say their characters are well developed that doesn't make them any less funny.

The version I saw was on HDNET and had subtitles for the Spanish dialog, so that was certainly not a problem. The use of Spanish gives it more authenticity.

A very underrated movie, judging by the unusually low score IMDb members have given it. I thought it was fun and interesting and worth a 7 at least. A lot of slick movies with higher scores and making big money at the box office are much less interesting.


After some of the negative reviews i heard on this movie, i was doubtful of giving it a go, but i had £3.99 in my wallet & thought id gamble on buying a budget like movie & saw this and gave it ago & I'm glad i did, i enjoyed it. Directed by The star of films such as Chain Reaction, the Ring, Bourne Identity,(Brian Cox) i had to gamble with this even if it was rubbish but it weren't at all, i found some of the humour quite funny especially Alfred Molina the star of Spider-man 2 the Character Doc Ock. He was excellent the most enjoyable part of the film. Of course like many other people which bought this movie i saw Matthew's name, and that made me get it! and no his part isn't big at all, it's very short at the very end of the film, it's not a big part which makes me believe thats why people hate the film. I suggest you give it a go. Some parts are a pit poor that needed polishing, the acting, and a bit more action. But it's watchable.


This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say "This is THE final movie in the series..."


It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit.


Someone release this movie on DVD so it can take its hallowed place as on of the greatest films of all time in ten to twenty years when critics and film historians look back on the so-called films of the 1990's and see how vapid they were for the most part, and how Lars Von Trier tried to revolutionize and revitalize the international film world with this masterpiece. As it stands, "Zentropa" (or "Europa" as it is referred to outside the US) is one of the most fascinating and artistic views of the bleakness and almost psychotic uncertainty that oozed out of post WWII Europe, namely the decimated German landscape, whose physical horrors were matched only by the damage to the psyche of its people. Von Trier brilliantly paints his vision on screen. You will feel like you are watching some lost espionage noir classic from the late 1940's with the perfectly lighted black and white scenes, while at the same time feel you are on the brink of something beyond the cutting edge, especially in scenes like the assassination aboard the train. Literally, when you see this movie, you are witnessing the evolution of an art form.

For some reason, Von Trier got caught up in his own Dogma movement shortly after this. And while his "Breaking the Waves" and "Dancer in the Dark" are classics in their own right, it is with "Zentropa" that he truly lifted the art of film making to new and exciting heights. 10/10, ages like a fine wine, and begs for a DVD release.


A few years ago, a friend got from one of his other friends a video with the Michael Mann film 'Heat' on it. After we finished that movie, and were about to stand up, we saw that there is another film just after, tough on the cassette's envelope the owner didn't write it up. Yet we were all glued back to our seats by its distinct opening, which lacked credits.

Some two hours later, I just sat there wondering: how could I not have heard of this masterpiece before?...

This film was Europa. Lars von Trier woke film noir from the dead, deconstructed reality with intentionally obvious sets, yet often there was haunting similarity with post-war German photographs I saw. And then the tricky cuts!

The story itself is a hard-to-take moral odyssey that has no happy end. A young American pacifist of German descent comes to post-war Germany, intent on doing some good to pay for the bombs his countrymen dropped. But he mostly meets distrust and self-destructive defiance. He hires with Zentropa, a dining-and-sleeping-car company (modeled on Mitropa), whose owner is one of the Nazi collaborators the Occupiers whitewash. Our hero falls in love with his daughter - who later turns out to be a member of the Werewolf, Nazi post-war terrorists. When he doesn't understand the world (or just Europeans) anymore, in his rage he blows up a railroad bridge under a train which he just saved.

As a final note, for historical correctness: in the real world, the Werewolf were nowhere as important as the film implies, they were mostly a final Nazi propaganda coup. After an SS unit assassinated the major of Allied-occupied Aachen, two months before the capitulation, the Nazis announced the creation of whole legions of saboteurs and terrorists who will be ready to fight behind the lines, the Werewolf. But only a few hundred of mostly Hitler Youth received some training, and while two or three times some were deployed to murder suspected communists or forced-labourer foreigners in Bavarian villages to imprint lasting fear on inhabitants, with Hitler's death and the war's end it all fell apart.

However, the Werewolf propaganda had a profound effect on the occupiers. They feared the Werewolf everywhere, suspected it behind any serious accident - but without exception another cause was found later (ignored by some recent pseudo-historians). For example, when a gas main exploded in the police HQ of bombed-out Bremen, or when the Soviet military commander died in a motorbike accident in Berlin. The effect was strongest on the Soviets, who arrested tens of thousands (in large part children!) 'preemptively' on suspicion of being Werewolf, and closed them off in prison camps where a lot of them died.


Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.

Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.

EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.

EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.

All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.

EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10


This is the fifth von Trier film I have seen. I believe that he is the only director to whom I have given such a high score on all his movies. Four of them, The Element of Crime, Europa, Breaking the Waves, and Dancer in the Dark, I have given a 10, and one, The Idiots, I have given a 9 (and I have been reconsidering whether to give it a 10 since I first saw it, although I'd like to see it once more before I do). He has been chided for calling himself one of the best working directors. I tend to agree with him. I cannot blame him for being arrogant when he has made such great films. In 50 years, when von Trier retires, he will be looked upon as the pre-eminent film artist from Europe (perhaps from the planet), and there will be classes taught in his name. He simply is the Bergman or Fellini of our time. It is too bad the critics are too intrigued with themselves to notice this.

About Europa itself, I'll admit that it was confusing and that its narrative did not seem strong. I think that's the point. This film was obviously meant to represent a nightmare, or the subconscious at some level. This is absolutely clear from the framing of the film: Max von Sydow's narration. We are hypnotized, or von Trier is hypnotized, and this is our/his subconscious mind. I'm inclined to lean more towards his mind, since the degradation of Europe concerns me, an American, very little. This framing is also clear if you have seen The Element of Crime, an even more brilliant film than this (although I am disputing that in my mind; what Europa needs more than anything is a proper release on DVD, hopefully Criterion again, with theatrical aspect ratio and remastered sound and picture; then, I am fairly sure, this film would seem as great as any of von Trier's other films). In The Element of Crime, the film begins with a hypnotist, whom we actually see on screen this time, is hypnotizing Fisher, a European detective who wants to get to the root of his mental anguish. The first words of that film are "Fantasy is okay, but my job is to keep you on track." And whenever Fisher, the narrator, gets off track, the hypnotist does chastize him and tells him to get back on with the story. He even laughs when a character is given a really silly and trite line. Something along the lines of, "Do you understand the difference between good and evil?" The hypnotist laughs and says, "Now, Fisher, she didn't really say that, did she?"

So the key to interpreting Europa, almost a sequel of sorts to The Element of Crime, is that we are deep in our/von Trier's subconscious, and the symbols there are to be interpreted within ourselves and will likely be different for everyone. What does the train itself symbolize? Consider it internally, and only then discuss it externally. Europa is a great film, a masterpiece. I was never bored by it, even though I watched it at 3 am. The perfect time to watch, actually, since it works in dream logic.


On October of 1945, the American German descendant Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) arrives in a post-war Frankfurt and his bitter Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) gets a job for him in the Zentropa train line as a sleeping car conductor. While traveling in the train learning his profession, he sees the destructed occupied Germany and meets Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the daughter of the former powerful entrepreneur of transport business and owner of Zentropa, Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold stays neutral between the allied forces and the Germans, and becomes aware that there is a terrorist group called "Werewolves" killing the sympathizers of the allied and conducting subversive actions against the allied forces. He falls in love for Katharina, and sooner she discloses that she was a "Werewolf". When Max commits suicide, Leopold is also pressed by the "Werewolves" and need to take a position and a decision.

"Europa" is an impressive and anguishing Kafkanian story of the great Danish director Lars von Trier. Using an expressionist style that recalls Fritz Lang and alternating a magnificent black & white cinematography with some colored details, this movie discloses a difficult period of Germany and some of the problems this great nation had to face after being defeated in the war. Very impressive the action of the occupation forces destroying resources that could permit a faster reconstruction of a destroyed country, and the corruption with the Jew that should identify Max. Jean-Marc Barr has an stunning performance in the role of man that wants to stay neutral but is manipulated everywhere by everybody. The hypnotic narration of Max Von Sydow is another touch of class in this awarded film. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Europa"


With stunning cinematography and a thread of Kafkaesque absurdity, this movie had me from the simple yet fascinating opening scene. The movie plays much like a dream, and I think that may be why people either hate it or love it. Characters are drawn superficially and the story itself is slight and perhaps a little pointless. But these are failings of the movie but conscious choices. The film works isn't trying to work as history, but rather is a deconstruction of 1940s war movies.

I would have trouble arguing that there was much real substance to the movie, but the movie is such a cinematic wonder that I was completely swept away. This is one of the most beautifully filmed movies ever, and there is a wild imagination in its style. I can completely understand why people would hate it, but I give it 9/10.


Von Trier once explained how he created such strong involvement from the viewer with his movies by placing his movie world in about the middle of the real world and the imagined world. So as viewers we think we watch a "true" story while in fact we are thoroughly manipulated, often to the point that the movie works disturbing (Dancer in the Dark) or painful (The Idiots/ Idioterne). Of course the Dogme-films acted only as a vehicle for this theory (besides creating some welcome spotlight on Von Trier).

The story is typical for Von Trier: our hero is idealistic, seems to balance his relations with everybody else, but soon becomes the victim of the problems others have created in the past for themselves. The idealist inevitably has to reject society in order to stay idealistic and becomes the terrorist. Mankind is spoiled and purity only leads to (self-)destruction. (These elements were also very omnipresent in Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.) The movie is also full of cynical (even humorous) undertones about the role of the Germans and Americans in post-war Germany.

As a technical achievement the movie is wonderfully designed: shifting and fading washed-out colors, screen overlays, action on different overlays (with the shooting of the soon-to-be mayor as the most interesting). In this movie we can see how good Von Trier's handles film as a technical medium. In his later works he seems to step down from this (as if he is not longer interested in technical achievements because they become so easily available).


This film captured my heart from the very beginning, when hearing Quincy Jones' first notes or seeing the wonderful color of purple of the flowers in the meadows. This is truly a film to cry and die for...! The whole cast gives the best performance in a film I've seen in years and Spielberg has really outdone himself! Whoppi Goldberg, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey(oh lord!), Danny Glover, and the others, all give us their best and you can feel it - almost touch it! Goldberg IS Celie, she gives her that insecurity and feeling of inferiority that is needed for the character, and we grow with her, we grow strong together with her, throughout the movie, and we triumph with her. Margaret Avery is wonderful as Shug Avery, even when she's at her most arrogant, and shows us that "sinners", indeed, "have souls too". The always sympathetic, charming Danny Glover makes a marvellous job at making people hate him and the magnificent music of(I'd say sir)Quincy Jones adds even more beauty to this splendid film! The photography, the music, the director and the music makes this beautiful, soulful movie into an experience of life. You don't want to miss it! "Sista'...remember my name..."


One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with "The Long Walk Home" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about "Homer and Eddie" or "Hollywood Squares," think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!)


I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.

It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.

Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.

Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy.


Taking a break from his escapist run in the early '80s, Steven Spielberg directed Whoopi Goldberg in an adaptation of Alice Walker's "The Color Purple", about about the desperate existence of an African-American woman in the 1930s. Watching Goldberg play Celie, it's incredible that this is the same woman who starred in movies like "Sister Act". This is the sort of movie that could easily be - no, make that SHOULD BE - part of the curriculum in Black Studies and Women's Studies. There's one scene that may be the most magnificent editing job that's ever been on screen (you'll know it when you see it). I can't believe that this didn't win a single Oscar; it may be Spielberg's second best movie behind "Schindler's List" (maybe even tied with it). Also starring Danny Glover, Adolph Caesar, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey, Willard E. Pugh, Akosua Busia, and Laurence Fishburne.


1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.

11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).

Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.

Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.

The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?


These days Spielberg's "The Color Purple" is mostly remembered for being nominated for eleven Oscars and winning zilch. What's even more alarming is that Spielberg himself wasn't even nominated for Best Director. Needless to say, the film-makers deserved more acclaim than they were accorded.

The story concerns the trials and tribulations of Celie Johnson (Whoopi Goldberg), an African-American woman dominated at first by her incestuous father and then by her abusive husband. The film spans several years and focuses mainly on Celie's relationships with the women around her. It's told from a decidedly female perspective but you needn't fear that it's a saccharine 'chick flick'.

The story is an interesting one, livened with humour at times although the central character's struggles are paramount. Some may not appreciate the change in tone towards the film's end but I didn't mind even though similar content in a lesser film would likely have me rolling my eyes.

The film received three Oscar nominations for acting: Whoopi Goldberg (Best Actress), Oprah Winfrey (Best Supporting Actress) and Margaret Avery (Best Supporting Actress). I think that Goldberg and Winfrey were certainly deserving and Danny Glover was unaccountably stiffed.

As already mentioned, Spielberg didn't receive a Best Director nomination for his efforts. Such an omission beggars belief, since Spielberg's direction here is top-notch. I'm not especially crazy about Quincy Jones's score but it's not below average by any means.

In the end, the story is a satisfying one, well-told by a master film-maker working from Pulitzer Prize-winning material. Give it a try and you'll probably be as baffled as I am about how it could be so poorly treated on Oscar night.


Genteel, softly spoken drama from Steven Spielberg was his first real venture into this genre. A departure from his normal adventure/fantasy fare, it paved the way for his 1993 success, "Schindler's List".

Based upon Alice Walder's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, the story concerns a young girl's arranged marriage of hardship to a brutal, angry farmer and her painful separation from her beloved younger sister Nettie. While the plot - about compassion, abuse and the power of love to heal all wounds - is often powerful and moving, it loses its way through the fault of continuity and Menno Meyjes' scrambling screenplay. "The Color Purple" is at times hard to follow and on one or more occasions tends to be a little erratic in regard to time frame. This lapse in scripting has cost the viewer the depth and detail obviously present in Miss Walker's novel. A real shame that maestro Spielberg was unable to pick out and rectify these problems, as most of the show is a wonderful example of his prowess as a director.

Performances are strong throughout, with Whoopi Goldberg making a debut - which she's never matched since with regard to acting accomplishment - as the heart broken Celie who just yearns to be loved. Danny Glover lends solid support, though his "Moses" was a superior turn for him in "Places in the Heart". The standout showing comes from the unheralded Oprah Winfrey as Miss Sophia, the single minded, fighting black woman whose spirit is crushed by a terrible incident involving a patronising, upper class white woman. Good support also from Margaret Avery, Adolph Caesar and Rae Dawn Chong.

Quincy Jones ( co-producer with Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall ) has penned a beautifully melodic score and also provided some original blues for the occasion. Editing from Michael Kahn is sound as always, while director of photography Allen Daviau shows consummate skill in capturing some glorious Southern scenery.

This true affair of the heart will surely bring a tear to your eye, it is just unfortunate we are left with so many unanswered questions.

Wednesday, January 15, 1997 - Video


Spielberg's first dramatic film is no let-down. It's a beautifully made film without any flaws about the life of an African-American woman. It also proves that not all movies that have the African-American ethnicity as the center of the story have to be helmed by an African-American director.

What I love about this movie is Spielberg's ability to make it very realistic despite the fact that it was based on a book. Furthermore, Danny Glover was excellent as Mr. And usually, he's just himself throughout most of his movies. But in this, he completely branches out and is someone else for once. But, the performance de resistance of the whole film comes from Whoopi Goldberg. She is excellent as Celie. You will never forget these characters once you've seen this movie.

Now, I heard that the musical version of it is going to be a film as well, and all I can say is: I hope it's about as good as this one is, because this one is a film that shouldn't be missed.


this was one of the most moving movies i have ever seen. i was about 12 years old when i watched it for the first time and whenever it is on TV i my eyes are glued to it. the acting and plot are amazing. it seems so true to reality and it touches on so many controversial topics. i recommend this movie to anyone interested in a good drama.


Rating "10/10" Master piece

Some years ago, i heard Spielberg comment that he would redo the movie here and there if he had a chance. Well, Mr Spielberg, i guess nothing is perfect, but this movie - together with schindler's List - is your best. Even Oprah acts well in this one !

What got me most is the realism of the story and drama. Stuff like this happened and is still happening in the world.


this movie is such a moving, amazing piece of work. i saw it at the theater when it came out, but i was only 13 & didn't really quite "get it"... i saw it again when i was 20 (on video of course & i now own it) & was just blown away. Steven Spielberg created a wonderful movie that keeps you wrapped up in it from beginning to end. i have read the book as well, but there is just something about the movie that really brings it to life. the casting, acting, music, costuming, scenery, everything, it just wonderful. you laugh, you cry, you cheer... it brings out every emotion imaginable. it is one of his finest pieces of work & should not be missed!


Steven Spielberg wanted to win an Oscar so bad that he figured that he wouldn't win by directing special effects epics (he was nominated for three of them: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial". So he decided to get very serious by directing "The Color Purple", a period film with no special effects. Spielberg's first serious drama is a remarkable movie. But the Academy voters who voted back in 1985 still didn't give Spielberg any respect. "The Color Purple" received 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, but Spielberg was unfairly snubbed when he wasn't nominated for Best Director. It got worse on Oscar night when this film didn't win a single Oscar. It got completely shut out. That wasn't right. "The Color Purple" should have won a couple of Oscars including one for Whoopi Goldberg's spectacular film debut as Celie, a woman who suffers at the hands of an abusive husband (frightfully placed by Danny Glover), then gets stronger throughout the film thanks to some special friends. Oprah Winfrey also made her film debut here and gives a great performance as Sofia, one of those friends' of Celie. Since I'm from Chicago, I had already known Winfrey from her talk show (which at the time of this films' release hadn't gone nationwide). Like Goldberg, what a film debut! Margaret Avery is terrific as Shug Avery, another friend who also happens to be the mistress of Celie's rotten husband. All three actresses received well-deserved Oscar nominations for their work here (Goldberg for Best Actress; Winfrey and Avery for Best Supporting Actress). Set in the south during the first half of the 20th Century, "The Color Purple" is a film so strong that it made me cry at the end. It also made me laugh at times too. Why Academy voters were so hard on not nominating Spielberg for Best Director is a mystery that still puzzles me today. But Spielberg would eventully go on to win two Oscars years later for "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", making him one of the best movie directors of all-time. But he should have gotten nominated for this movie. The job that he did going from special effects blockbusters like "E.T." to a serious drama like "The Color Purple" was remarkable.

**** (out of four)


I remember when this film was up for the Academy Awards and did not win in any category. For the life of me, I cannot remember what it was up against, but one thing I can say: It was one of the best movies I have ever seen. And the fact that Steven Spielberg directed the film did not persuade me one bit.

Essentially, it is about a black woman's trials and tribulations as she is growing up from a girl to a woman. There are a lot of insinuations that are disturbing and horrifying, but all of them are needed to see how much this woman has put up with. Along the way, we see other women who have had to put up with their hardships and walk with them to redemption. Whoopi Goldberg gives her best performance ever in this movie. Danny Glover should have also gotten at least nominated for his role in this film.

And the best part of this movie is that it treats its subjects humanely, not like some sideshow freak shows like the more recent "Beloved" did. I encourage anyone of any race to see this film. 9/10


I've seen this movie at least fifty times and after watching it last week for the first time in a long time I still FELT it.

The story itself was incredible but came alive by Spielberg's expertise and the fabulous cast including Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, and Margaret Avery. Akosua Busia deserved an Oscar nomination for her short but powerful portrayal of Nettie.

You'll experience every human emotion while watching this film. I laughed, cried, and got angry. Like most great movies it was looked over by the Academy with a host of nominations but no wins. But this movie, without a doubt, is definitely one of the best films of all time.


Absolutely one of my favorite movies of all time. I have seen it at least a hundred times and I can't go through it without crying. I defy anyone to watch the reunion of Celie and Nettie, or Shug and father and not feel your eyes getting misty. Whoopie Goldberg should have one an award for amazing portrayal. And for the person who said you can't love the movie if you loved the book, wrong! Im a testament to that.


The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time!


"The Color Purple", is truly amazing. There is none like it, and I don't think there ever will be. It's a roller coster of emotion and pain that the viewer takes on. The actors are flawless and the directing is superb. I absolutely loved it. A movie has never made me so happy. It is beautiful, that's the best way to explain it.


This movie is so wonderful, it's hard to find words to describe it. This is the only time I can't decide which was better, the book or the movie.

Whoopi Goldberg is awesome, and Oprah Winfrey, such a good actress, she could be funny, happy and miserable all at the same time. All together the movie was well directed by Steven Speilberg, and should not be passed up. 9/10


This is an excellent film, with an extraordinary cast and acting. I was very disappointed with the Academy Awards when this didn't get the Oscar for best film and for best actress (Woopi Goldberg)... it certainly deserved it. In any case, take a look at it. i am sure you will enjoy it very much.


Steven Speilberg's adaptation of Alice Walkers popular novel is not without its share of controversy. When first released members of the black community criticised its treatment of black men, while others questioned why a white man was directing this film about black women.

This is the story of a young black woman named Celie, growing up in rural America after the turn of the century. She has two children by her abusive father which are snatched from her arms at birth. Her only solace in her miserable life comes from her sister.

Celie (played in later years by newcomer Whoopie Goldberg) is married off to an abusive husband (Danny Glover). The husband is humiliated by the sister and so she is quickly removed from Celie's life.

The story is often heartbreaking as Celie keeps up hope that she may one day be reunited with her sister and with her children. Throughout her life she meets an assortment of characters, including Sophia, a tough as nails wife to her step son, and Shug, a loud and luscious saloon singer, who teaches her a thing or two about love.

Speilberg's direction is all over this picture, which offers brilliant cinematography and some stellar performances. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved! The film The Color Purple manages to capture the essence of what is a complicated story. While it tends to minimise the lesbian aspects as well as the African story, both of which were so vivid in the book, the movie remains true to its themes, allowing the voice of Alice Walker to shine through.

I couldn't begin to respond to the controversy that surrounded this film. Suffice it to say, however, this is one of the few films that I can watch again and again, and which has left an indelible mark on me.


This movie is about development. People growing and people fading, people surprising and people disappointing. It has it all and more. There is hope, frustration, injustice, justice, love and hate. It is truly a classic drama that has fantastic performances from the whole cast but especially Whoopi Goldberg in her debut role.

This movie made me feel very human and proud of it, and I suggest that this movie should be mandatory each Saturday in all prisons in the world - it touches your compassion. Rating: 10 of 10.

PS: I admit it: I shed a tear of joy during the final scene.


In the year 1985 (my birth year) Steven Spielberg directed an emotionally strong and unforgettable story of a young African-American girl Celie (Debut role for Whoopi Goldberg) whose life is followed through rough times. The story begins from the year 1909 when Celie is only 14 years old. She has given birth two children for her father. Celie has a younger sister Nettie with whom she is inseparable. A widower lays his eyes on Nettie but their father gives Celie to him. It is the beginning of an era of horrible abuse and constant controlling. Women are inferior of men and especially being an African-American woman their rights are less than a zero. Celie's story is a true survival story.

"The Color Purple" is a master-piece and underestimated film of Spielberg. He should make more drama which "The Color Purple" and "Schindler's List" are good notion.

The cast is amazing. Whoopi Goldberg is known better as a ravingly funny comedienne but the introducing role as Celie is a remarkable word that she really can pull of heavy drama. Danny Glover was surprisingly nasty "Mister". I have never seen him in a such an evil role. The talk-show icon Oprah Winfrey is brilliant as a strong-willed Sofia.

Warning! Prepare to have a number of tissues with you when watching this film. You can really connect to the story of the strong sisterhood. Especially if you have as close relationship with your siblings like I have with my sister.

Big applauds to Mr. Spielberg!


Like I said at the top, four stars just aren't enough. It's one of the best films I've ever seen in my almost 17 years of life. For the people that don't really like it or understand it, you must not have a real appreciation for art or you might have a short attention span.

Even if I haven't seen all his films yet, I'd have to say that this is Spielberg at his peak. It's pretty sad to see that movies as great as "The Color Purple" don't come along too often 'cause I think all of us are in desperate need of first-class motion picture entertainment in these hard times.

Movies like this are more than just movies; they're pieces of art that need to be appreciated more.

The idea that it was nominated for 11 Oscars (even Best Picture of the Year) and didn't get one trophy is a sign of how blind and stupid Hollywood can be sometimes. Spielberg wasn't even nominated for Best Director! It should have swept the Oscars that year.

The film clearly shows you how unfair life is for some people.

If only movies were still this good....


11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges....

Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out.

The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......

But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!

I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation.


I can't believe I am just now seeing this film -- I think perhaps I thought it was another movie about slaves being mistreated, and I avoided Roots for the same reason -- just as I have yet to see Schindler's List -- I don't want to be "entertained" by other peoples' pain, not matter how authentic or informative it is supposed to be.

So I guess the main thing I noticed about The Color Purple was that it was not about black people being mistreated by whites. The black people were perfectly capable of raping their own daughters -- or giving them away to be treated as slaves by their "husbands". It was painful to watch, but everyone redeemed himself in the end, and the acting was phenomenal! I couldn't believe the character Oprah played at the age of 35! And I adore Whoopi to start with - she was amazing. I'm so glad I was feeling lousy yesterday afternoon and Showtime was running The Color Purple.


The Color Purple is about the struggles of life and the love that helps those people strongly affected by the struggles of life. Every character had an element of the color purple in them. The movie touches on love, lost, hope, hate, and triumph. whether it be Celie having lived through hell and losing her sister, and Shug coming into her life to show her love again, Albert not being man righting his wrong toward Celie, Shug shunned by her father and confesses to him in the end, Sofia and her stubborness good and bad, and even Nettie, they had their emptiness and hardship through the film but was overcome in the end and that's the sign of a good movie. Good Job to all the cast and crew.


The film is hugely enjoyable with a great cast, and excellent direction by James Eves. The movie is entertaining with a very charismatic performance from Stephanie Beecham and everyone is perfectly cast. James Eves has a good eye for casting and directs like a conductor knowing exactly when to crank up the action, fall and then rise to a climax. He does this with an element of humour, Plenty of twists, thrills and blood. This is a return of the old vampire movie, with loads of gore, blood and screams. The movie works at a great speed and the characters take you on a terrific adventure,but what makes it work is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with plenty of tongue in cheek action.Great !


Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic.


I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.

You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.

With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.

Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.

A must for old school horror fans.


A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them?

My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".

It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.

Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".

Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.

Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.

While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more.


I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best.

As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: "Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted." Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved.

The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.

The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie.


I just saw "Valentine" and I have to say that it was the best slasher movie that I've seen in years. Unlike the recent trend of 90's horror flicks, this movie is more concerned with being eerie than it is with being self-mocking. For those out there that hated "Scream," there is not one reference to "the horror rules" in this movie (even though the old slasher movie rules do apply here).

This is the perfect blend of 80's and 90's horror. You get the style, cinematography, and good acting of 90's films and the stalking-slasher madness of an 80's flick. I guess the year 2001 is going to finally give horror fans the kind of movies they were longing for. This is definitely a move in the right direction.

Denise Richards stands out here as a fun character. You can tell she liked her role, and that makes her stand out. I loved her in this movie.


It's a colorful slasher movie. That's about it.

It has the mystery element that SCREAM made so popular in slasher movies, but I never care for such things. Figuring out who's the bad guy is not that interesting considering the clues are all misleading anyway.

The death scenes were inventive and gorey, bringing back memories of 80's horror movies like Friday the 13th.

Another nice thing about this movie is that it's hard to pinpoint the surviving girl, unlike in SCREAM and IKWYDLS where it was obvious.

People who don't like slasher movies won't like this movie. As simple as that. I truly enjoyed it and I plan to watch it again while waiting for more of the same.

--MB


I wanted to see Valentine ever since I saw that Denise Richards and Marley Shelton were in it because they had played in some of my favorite movies ever. When I watched Valentine, I was amazed at how great the story line actually was. It kills me to see that it has a low rating because it was not horrible at all. The actors and actresses played the parts wonderfully and the way it ended was so brilliant and cunning. Some scenes were a little unbelievable and or poor, and I admit at a few minor parts it got just a small bit boring, but overall it was non-stop entertaining and suspenseful. It had a mind-twisting story line which made you guess the whole way through and it doesn't deserve all the crap it gets. I recommend this movie to watch anytime, but especially on Valentine's Day because it's sure to give you a ton of chills. Oh, and don't even pay attention to the trailer OR rating, please, DON'T...


Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.

I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!

PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon...


These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.

The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.

The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!

The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!

The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(

Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking".

Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!

Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!


Valentine is now one of my favorite slasher films. The death scenes are elaborate and the most of the acting is good. Marley Shelton did great as the female lead (much better than Jennifer Love Hewitt in the "I Know..." films). David Boreanaz, whom is the main reason I saw this movie, had a pretty small role, but he played it well. The exception to the list of good actors is Denise Richards. She was horrible in this. The only scene I was glad to see her in was *SPOILER* her death scene. All in all, it's a good movie to watch. You should definitely watch this before you watch "Scream" or "I Know..." again.


What an awesome movie! It was very scary, great acting, well-written, nice plot twists, interesting characters, very good direction, and a surprise ending that will leave you with a smile on your face. This is one popcorn horror flick that may not be appealing to non-horror fans, but is still (nonetheless) one of the best thrillers out there today! I highly recommend it to ONLY fans of:

1) The horror genre

OR

2) An actor or actress featured in it.

*** out of **** stars!

PS- I am sick and tired of people comparing this, and other modern horror movies, with SCREAM. Ya know what, they didn't WANT to be like SCREAM. Everyone's like "Oh, they copied SCREAM!". Well, if I am not mistaking, SCREAM also copied other movies too! In fact, just about EVERY horror movie copied an earlier one. SCREAM, however, was a good film. But, still... stop comparing and enjoy it for what it is!

GO AND RENT THIS ONE!


The first hour or so of the movie was mostly boring to say the least. However it improved afterwards as the Valentine Party commenced. Apart from the twist as to the identity of the killer in the very end, the hot bath murder scene was one of the few relatively memorable aspects of this movie. The scene at the garden with Kate was well shot and so was the very last scene (the 'twist'). In those scenes, there was some genuine suspense and thrills and the hot bath murder scene had a nasty (the way slashers should be) edge to it. The earlier murders are frustratingly devoid of gore.


Another entry in the "holiday horror" category that fills the shelves of your local video store. The *spoiler* "wronged nerdy teen taking revenge on the 'cool' kids who wronged him" plot will of course be familiar to those who've watched it before. And those who've seen it before will probably watch it again; those who are expecting Ingmar Bergman and will subsequently become indignant about their wasted time should just skip it. Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack and David Boreanaz, Denise Richards and Katherine Heigl as eye candy--go with the flow and enjoy it. Oh, and I loved the creepy mask.


Katherine Heigl, Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz. Even before I knew what this film was about, these names were enough to draw me in. Gorgeous, talented and popular, these are performers to look out for.

Ok, where do I start. We already know what the film is about. Five beautiful girls being targeted by a 'romantic' serial slasher, a guy they all turned down at the school dance 13 years ago. His trademarks include subtle deaththreats disguised as valentine cards, maggot-infested chocolates and a bleeding nose. His weapon of choice: well, take a pick - axe, knife, electric powerdrill, bow and arrow, hot iron, etc. Ok, so basically it's a horror movie with a nice twisted sense of sexuality.

Horror movies aren't supposed to be Shakespeare, but I'm not gonna go there. I love horror movies, but not all of them. This one, I adore. It's up there with some of my other favorites. It's funny, sexy and scary. The killer's mask is childishly creepy, and seeing cupid firing a bow and arrow at a victim is really freaky. The acting is topnotch: Denise Richards, Marley Shelton and David Boreanaz are a lot of fun. I really did wish to see much, much more of Katherine Heigl. I am one of her biggest fans and would love to see her doing some leading work soon. Jessica Capshaw is a very capable actress, and Jessica Cauffiel gets to do the ditzy blonde role she perfected in Urban Legend 2. The smaller parts were also good; Hedy Buress was a hoot ('bleedmedry.com') and that younger version of Denise Richards looked frightfully like her.

Highlights: Every death scene had a particular distinction to it. The creepiest being the opening scene in the morgue. The hottub scene, while ludicrous, was well done. And the audiovisual maze was sinister. The soundtrack is great, with creepy music and some fine alternative tunes.

Lowpoint: I felt as though the killer wasn't featured enough, we barely saw the mask, and it wasn't featured at all during the climax. I also thought the climax was really unfocused, but fun nonetheless.

The twist at the end wasn't that big of a surprise, but I'm really glad that the filmmakers decided to spare us that whole 'explaining killer' routine.

I don't like to tell people which movies they should see, but if someone asked me to pick a horror movie that I thought was really worth seeing, then Valentine would be it.

My rating: 10/10 (Bullseye!)


I gave it an 8 only because it had received such low votes... this is definitely really about a 5.5..... Ummm.. it was kind of bloody, had likeable, shallow characters, and it had some really hot babes in it. I like the eclectic killer, because he didn't kill people the same way everytime... that sometimes gets old.


I really enjoyed this thriller! I wanted to see it again as soon as it was over. The cast was excellent, the plot was suspenseful and entertaining, and it was just an overall enjoyable movie! I would rate this as one of the best thrillers I've ever seen! The girls in it were really cute also, especially Denise Richards. She was very ornery throughout the movie and gave her character some OOMPH!


I loved This Movie. When I saw it on Febuary 3rd I knew I had to buy It!!! It comes out to buy on July 24th!!! It has cool deaths scenes, Hot girls, great cast, good story , good acting. Great Slasher Film. the Movies is about some serial killer killing off four girls. SEE this movies


I read Schneebaum's book (same title as this film) when it was first published and was deeply moved by his ability to see through the many ways of "otherness" (his own and the people of the Amazon with whom he lived and loved) to a way of living a decent life. His subsequent books were not as powerful, but showed his continuing quest. His description of his sexual relations with the men of the tribe was way ahead of its time in the early 60's, but his honesty and openness about it were welcome. This movie beautifully conveys both the quirkiness and generosity of the man, but also provides a glimpse into the inevitable destruction of innocence (which is not a morally positive term, in this case) that occurs when "civilized" men intrude on traditional societies. Even so, Schneebaum himself has moved into a kind of higher innocence that suggests the possibility of saving humanity from its own destructiveness.


I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian.