How can anyone argue the fact that Urban Cowboy was, and still is, the best document of Texas life for the time period. Consider the following: men beat their wives, get drunk at bars nightly, get married to settle a fight, commit adultery, and compete on mechanical bulls. Try and name a movie that depicts real life so vividly. They dont make them anymore. It seems current films are always about people with lots of money, they live in huge homes, drive expensive cars and don't work. This movie has a celebration scene about getting a trailer for pete's sake !

Anyway, I watch it at least once a week. No kidding. I have dissected this movie from end to end. feel free to email me to learn more about my reason for calling it a documentary. Consider the following scenes: Bud sees Sissy - they are split up - he amicably honks and waves, she flips him the bird - he returns half the peace sign honking his horn to add impact then tears off.

Buds mom calls him approx. 18 hours after he gets into town, on a Sunday, to see if he has a job yet - all he has accomplished is getting drunk and laid(x2), with help from his uncle and aunt who cover for him.

"You all live like pigs" Think about why this scene is needed. Think about it. Was it necessary ? Could we not figure it out without showing the filthy sink ? God I love that !

Sissy allows Wes to help her ride the bull. Only a few days (or possibly the next day) after Wes just kicked the crap out of her husband. Steve asks - Hey Sissy, remember Wes ? Oh yeah, didnt you beat my husband up the other night, so let's get this lesson goin', to make no mention of the fact that she seeks solace in him later during one Bud and Sissy's many fights, which by the way all take place in public - in Gilley's !

The Wedding reception picture taking session (oh the humanity !) could they at least arrange or move the chairs out of the way. "My legs are sweatin' momma"

In conclusion, you don't put scenes like this in a movie to try and show insight into human psychology. It is a documentary of real life.

I only wish there was a director's cut....


This is a smart drama about the way of life in a Texas honky tonk in the early 1980's. John Travolta and Debra Winger turn out two very believable performances as Bud and Sissy Davis. This film really opens up the country music scene and helped introduce America to the mechanical bull. If you love a good romance film, then you will love this movie.


Another entertaining Travolta dance flick! GREAT MUSIC, mood, and scenes. Debra Winger is beautiful! Like "Saturday Night Fever", this macho film features extremely improbable scenes of beautiful women falling for Travolta and almost begging him to have sex with them.


don't mind the soundtrack, which is played out by now.

Still, Debra Winger is always interesting and while this was an earlier role for her, she is quite good as Cissy, girl from the wrong side of the tracks, lived in trailer with Bud, (Travolta), only to be replaced for a time by city slicker Madolyn Smith as a rival.

I agree with an earlier review regarding Scott Glenn, he is used for plot only, thrown in to the mix to create suspense; the story is predictable and contrived.

Also, even though I am from the east, many of us did NOT like "Saturday Night Fever", while it had its moments, the perpetual stereotypes are beyond criticism at this point.

Worth seeing for Debra Winger; she is still so likable, and never had that Hollywood persona we are subjected to by too many actresses today. 7/10


John Travolta, the biggest honkeytonk in the world, and a mechanical bull...what more can you ask for! Yeah, you're probably not going to get many surprises or deep meaning in this one. Yet, I have always found it fairly enjoyable to watch this redneck romance. Bud (Travolta) and Sissy (Debra Winger) meet at Gilley's and fall in love. They have all the difficulties you might expect a hardcore redneck couple to have. The honkeytonk scenes are fun with dancing, mechanical bull riding, and -of course- the required brawls. It has a good, 1980 country soundtrack, featuring "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places", "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", and "Hello Texas" by my favorite Jimmy Buffett. Break out your cowboy boots and have a boot-scootin' boogie!

*** (Out of 4)


My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music!


The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.

We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.

Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER.


Even longtime Shirley fans may be surprised by "Now and Forever." The movie was filmed with Paramount studios  not with Shirley's parent company Twentieth Century Fox  in 1934, before Fox producer Darryl Zanuck had perfected the successful Shirley formula (cute songs, cold hearts for her to melt, young couples for her to play cupid to, happy endings). Thus "Now and Forever" falls into the category of a Shirley vehicle without the standard Shirley story. It is an awkward position for any movie, but this impressive, talented cast makes it work.

Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard star as fun-loving, irresponsible con artists Jerry and Toni Day. The only thing that this devoted yet dysfunctional duo seems to hate more than being together is being apart. When they are suddenly landed with custody of Jerry's young daughter Penny (Shirley Temple), it is Toni  and not Penny, as many believe  who persuades Jerry to give up his criminal career. But Jerry flounders at his desk job, and desperate to prove that he can provide for his new family, he soon returns to thieving and dishonesty. In a standard Shirley device, Penny tries to melt the heart of crusty curmudgeon Felix Evans, the victim of one of Jerry's cons, but her attempt fails, for Evans is revealed to be a con artist himself, and he blackmails Jerry into helping him steal jewels. The drama, gunfight, death, and sorrow that follow all make this film a very unusual one for Little Miss Sunshine. There is no happy ending, no dancing, and only one song sequence (the cute number "The World Owes Me a Living").

But this does not mean that Shirley fans should avoid "Now and Forever." Rather, it's divergence from the usual Shirley story make it more interesting and memorable than many of her other films. But beware: You should avoid colorized version of this film, and see it in black-and-white if you can. The color is bright, garish, and unrealistic, and in many scenes, Shirley's famous curls are actually red instead of blonde. Yikes!


This is a very rare film and probably the least known from Shirley Temple as it isn't on any of her collections.The reason why is probably because it doesn't have a happy ending,unlike all her other films.Its also not a musical,although she does belt out one song called' The world owes me a living'.The film was made in 1934 and originally in black and white,the version i have is in colour and on VHS,i would say they have done a fine job as the colour does look realistic,unlike i would say the colourised films of Laurel And Hardy which are dreadful.The film is good for its age and the story hasn't dated at all,I'm surprised no one has tried to do a remake.At times the film is a little bit to talky as some of the scenes with Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard seem really dragged out, in some scenes they seem to take fifteen minutes to say what they could have said in five.Although don't be put off by this because this film does have some genuinely good moments in it,especially when {Jerry}Gary Cooper steals a necklace,and hides it in Shirley's teddy bear.The tension and slow build up to his actions,{while at the same time his daughter is singing to an audience in another room}is very well directed.Gary and Caroles edgy facial expressions when they are put under scrutiny are also very good.In all this is a good film from the early 30's,accept it for its age.


This is a sprawling (4 hours) remake of the Rider Haggard story, with the usual added female and an extraneous subplot with Russian soldiers seeking a "Stone of Power" buried along with the treasure of King Solomon. It's very well shot, giving a vivid sense of the wide open spaces of Africa, and very well acted. Patrick Swayze is an excellent Alan Quatermain, and Allison Doody is attractive as Elizabeth Maitland, who hires Quatermain to help rescue her father. Sidede Onyulo as Umbopa, Gavin Hood as McNabb and the leader of the Russian soldiers (not named in IMDb's listing) are also memorable. For all that Hollywood can't leave a good story alone when they adapt it, this one is well told and, except that it's too long, I enjoyed it. 6/10.


King's Solomon's Mines brings us Patrick Swayze (playing Allan Quatermain)who has spent a lot of time in Africa, but decides it is time to return to England and be a father to his son. He finds that his wife's parents have taken custody of his son and that he has very little chance of getting custody of him with lots of money for a law suit. In comes Alison Deedy (playing Elizabeth) whose father is in Africa and being held by an African tribe for ransom of the map Elizabeth's father had sent her. Elizabeth seeks out Quatermain to take her back to Africa to find her father.

There is a good cast of supporting characters that go along with Quatermain and Elizabeth and of course there are some enemies (Russians) who want the map also.

The movie holds your attention until the end. Patrick once again plays a ruggedly handsome honorable man who comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress. Patrick is a great dramatic actor who can easily portray passion, loss and despair, the rugged silent good man, anger and strength; In King Solomon's Minds his character actually smiles a few times. I would really like to see Patrick Swayze in a relaxed live-loving story again, one in which he doesn't have to clench his jaws and be quite so strong. Maybe a little dancing would help. But this is a good movie for the entire family and worth the time to watch it.


If you a purist, don't waste your time - otherwise, hold onto your hat and enjoy the adventure. I loved the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version - I've seen it dozens of times, but this film is every bit as good, only different. I won't detail the differences because it would spoil the film. Also, it is a pleasure to see Alison Doody again (I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan), Patrick Swayze is good as Quatermain, and the supporting cast is superb. I find the quality of the supporting cast one of the trademarks of a Hallmark Production and this film was no exception. The cinematography is splendid and the score is perfect. If you are looking for entertainment, you won't be disappointed.


The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there).

It was labeled by many critics to have been a "great parody," or "unintentional comedy." Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.

With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots.

Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.

Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be.

This version rates a 9.8/10 on the "TV" scale from...

the Fiend :.


I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.


Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile.


I loved this movie. Great storyline and actors and good movie sets. It told the story in a way I can easily understand and pay attention to without falling asleep. I would like to know where I could get the soundtrack. I can not find it anywhere. Please email me if you know where I could get the soundtrack. Other than not being able to find the soundtrack I thought the movie was fascinating. Swayze did a great job. I think this is some of his best work. His past movies were OK, but this one really told a story for a change. This will go down in history as being one of the best TV films ever aired. Congrats to the producers and writers of such a great piece of work.


True, it does not follow the book very closely, but it's still a very entertaining take on the story. Swayze was far better in the role than I expected. And Doody avoided the "silly woman out of her depth in the wilderness" portrayal most of us probably expected (cf. Kate Capshaw in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom").

At any rate, it's amazingly better than Richard Chamberlain's awful pair of Quatermain flicks.

It is very reminiscent of a western in many ways. About the only thing I didn't care for was all the mysticism, but I guess that is part and parcel of the genre. Like "how can you have an African adventure story without witch doctresses and preternaturally wise wandering tribesmen?" Heh.


I never had an inkling while watching the movie that it was meant for the idiot box. I always thought that this was some very good successful movie of the late 90's. But after I saw on the internet that this was meant for the TV, I was shocked because for a television film, it is absolutely fantastic!

The thing that mostly concerned me was the length. I felt that the one on one battle scene should've been removed as it was completely unnecessary. Also, it began to drag towards the end as it seemed as if the adventure was never going to end.

On the plus side, there is a strong, very interesting and captivating plot with magnificent performances by everyone. I just felt that Patrik Frayze looked a bit haggard. I also felt that Gogool, who looked dementing turned a bit stupid at some scenes.

I was delighted by the beautiful landscapes of Africa. Also, the first half of the movie would have made me give this movie a 9. Still, its a great film for the television. 8 out of 10.


Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!! Who the hell rests at night whilst walking in the desert and travels in the heat of the sun, and these people are supposed to be professional trackers/journeymen!!


When I heard Patrick Swayze was finally returning to his acting career with KING SOLOMON'S MINES I was very excited. I was expecting a great Indiana Jones type action adventure. What I got was a 4 hour long (with commercials) epic that was very slow. The second and third hour could have been dropped altogether and the story would not have suffered for it. The ending was good (no spoilers here)but I was still left wanting more. Well all a guy can do is prey that Swayze does "RoadHouse 2" so he can get back into the action genre that made him famous. Until than if your a fan of King Solomon's Mines than read the book or watch the 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone which is also not very good but its only and hour and forty minutes of your life gone instead of 4 hours.


The tourist season has just ended on a remote island off the coast of Scotland, winter is beginning to set in and the inhabitants, both humans and sheep alike are settling down to much quieter times ahead. Michael Gaffikin (James Warwick) a former paratrooper in the British Army, is the local dentist, he's not an islander by birth and as such his relationship with local artist and cartographer Fiona Patterson (Celia Imrie) is always being viewed with a little suspicion, not maliciously, but just out of the protective instincts the tight knit community have for their kin. The islands serenity is broken when Gaffikin out for a solitary round of golf finds the headless remains of a brutally slain woman. He immediately reports his gruesome find to Insp Inskip(Maurice Roëves) at the islands police station, Inskip arranges for delivery of the remains to local GP, Dr Goudry, for closer inspection. A quick search for the killer proves fruitless, as does a search for a missing local woman. Over dinner that night with Michael Gaffikin, Fiona realises that the dead woman might be Sheila Anderson, a woman from the mainland, who lives on the island through the winter months. A quick search at her home Dove Cottage reveals the missing remains of her body, her home proving to be the murder scene, but why did the killer drag her torso over a mile into the woods? Suspicion immediately falls on the one stranger left on the island, one Colonel Howard (Jonathan Newth)who also happened be the last person to see her alive as they came across on the last ferry together.

Goudry asks Gaffikin for some dental expertise on the victims body, it reveals that she had been torn apart my somebody or something with great strength, one set of teeth marks on the body seem to point at a human killer, another points to that of an unknown animal of some kind. A sheep is found mutilated and then a Canadian ornithologist is found slain. With a heavy fog rolling in, the island is cut off from the mainland and any possibility of help, the radio also doesn't work, seemingly being blocked and the phone lines have been cut. Reports of UFO's and the sighting of a camouflaged soldier are compounded by the finding of an odd looking craft hidden behind rocks on the beach. Inskip is confused and refuses to listen to anything but the facts and laughs off Gaffikin's idea that aliens might be involved, but a rise in radioactive levels on the island, has him doubting himself.

The Nightmare Man is based on the novel, Child of the Vodyanoi by David Wiltshire, it is here adapted by Dr Who and Blake's 7 scriptwriter Robert Holmes and directed by Douglas Camfield who also had directing experience on both Sci/Fi classics and the film benefits from having such experienced genre experts on board. The Nightmare Man though is on the whole, a succinctly better crafted piece, that builds its plot alongside solid character development, even down to the minor characters, time is given to giving them all a firm background. The island setting is perhaps a genre cliché that has been used over and over, but its one that I enjoy very much, the remoteness, the sense of being under siege with no way out always add to the atmosphere and here it is given an extra oomph by having an impenetrable fog close in to hamper all efforts. In many genre efforts of this kind it is very easy for proceedings to get silly and for the plot to resort to melodrama, but credit to Camfield, he holds it all together with the emphasis being on believability at all times. There is an authenticity about proceedings, the characters even speaking Gaelic at times to further this point. If there is one negative about the killer its that, we are given his/her/its POV for the killings, an acceptable cliché on its own, but when seen through a red filter and a fish eye lens, it just screams of overkill and dates the film just a little. Still though you will be hard pressed to guess the outcome or the identity or for that matter the species of the killer, given the clues presented, but it's a fun and very well acted piece. The local Scottish cast are exceptional, the local bobbies Roeves and Cosmo in particular spar well off each other and are a delight to behold. Imrie, never one i've taken to in other works, is also pretty good and displays hew womanly physique as if she were in a Hammer production. The outlandish, maybe even preposterous ending may irk some viewers, it disappointed me in some ways, but taking into account when it was made, its an understandable and acceptable addendum that if you think about it, is even more terrifying.


I was surprised, that ''The Secret Fury'' was an enjoyable good film...... Probably because, I didn't have any expectations for this movie..... Though, the film does have it's plot holes..... I would say, that you couldn't guess who was behind the whole scheme, until the very end of the movie..... At first, I thought, it was Robert Ryan, using the same method, like ''Gaslight'' where husband tries to drive his wife mad, but I was wrong...... The main problem, with the movie is, they drive at a whole other direction, which gave no clues at the beginning...... I thought, Robert Ryan & Claudette Colbert carried their parts well...... Plus, Vivian Vance, a fine character actress, who steals scenes in this one...... Those who like movies, that keeps you guessing, will like this one......


In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found "Silent Fury" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main "baddie" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly.


The Secret Fury, in many ways a run-of-the-mill romantic suspense drama (directed by Mel Ferrer) boasts top-notch principals in Colbert and Ryan; it stays puzzling if not quite gripping until towards the end, when implausibility conquers suspension of disbelief -- as so often it does in this genre. But for some viewers the film's highlight will be the portrayal of blowsy Leah by Vivian Vance -- the immortal Ethel Mertz on "I Love Lucy." Oddly, Vance had very few film roles; her true home was Broadway, where (among other gigs) she understudied for Ethel Merman. Here she contributes a winning turn as a chambermaid suborned to play a minor part in a nefarious scheme; watch her half-heartedly trying to wave away the smoke when she's puffing a furtive cigarette in the hotel's linen-storage room -- a transgression for which she ultimately pays the supreme penalty.


This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.

The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent.


When ever a film is produced or directed by Mel Ferrer, you can bet your life any of his pictures will be seen for generation after generation. Just having Claudette Colbert,(Ellen R. Ewing),"The Egg & I",'47 appearing and starring in the film will make it even more of a great Classic Film. In this film, Ellen Ewing gets married and then she encounters all kinds of mental problems and even murder. The mystery gets very much involved and Robert Ryan,(David McLean),"Battle of the Bulge",'65, comes to the aid of Ellen and sometimes you even wonder about David being on the up and up. As you view this picture you just about find yourself beginning to understand who is the real nutty person and all of a sudden, you begin to change your mind how the film will end. Great acting by Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan who played an entirely different role than he usually portrays on the screen. I forgot to mention that Mel Ferrer, was married to a great film star, Audrey Hepburn. Great Classic film, with great Classic Actors !


Well, would firstly like to clarify that Kaakha Kaakha is a part of a Tamil prayer and roughly translated it means "to protect". Khakhee on the other hand refers to the color of the police uniform (which is Khakhi!).

Also, the Tamil film industry is rather full of purely commercial ventures , any Rajnikanth or Vijay movie would stand testament to that statement.

Now Kaakha Kaakha is an EXCELLENT movie with a great soundtrack. Certainly very stunning in the final scene, especially love the ending (which is certainly unexpected!). The gore is rather too much at times, but certainly this is a great movie!


This one stood out for it's originality. I'm seriously tired of seeing Hindi movies that are a hotch-potch of a whole bunch of Hollywood and Brit movies. Some flaws were inevitable, nonetheless, this movie is a must-see. Surya's portrayal of the clean-cut, conscientious cop (as opposed to the pot-bellied, money-hungry ones that we normally see) was awesome. He's come a long way from his work in Nerukku Ner. I liked the movie so much that I had to own it. I'm not usually into the mindless violence type of movies, somehow I actually felt for each character and therefore can't really bring myself to call it 'mindless' violence. I do not appreciate the excessive melodrama and sentimental scenes that go hand in hand with most Hindi and Tamil movies. I absolutely loved this movie for it's lack of the same. ACP Anbuselvan's reaction to loosing his wife, is not overdone, is heart-wrenching and makes me want to bawl my eyes out. There are certain times when I'm watching a movie when I want to hit the FF button. Plenty of times I've wanted to do that at a cinema hall. Never wanted to do so when watching this movie. I'm really hoping that Ghajini releases soon.


Indian cinema typifies cops of two broad categories: they are either the honest type or the bad guys. The honest guys always shout at the top of their voice and fight the system while the bad cops enjoy for most part but suffer at the end.

This movie at least breaks this usual formula and gives a refreshing view of cops and their lives. The direction takes an inside look at the life of a young ambitious cop who. The music is interesting and the editing is a trend setter as far as Indian cinema goes.

The movie is slow at times and the dilemma which Anbu faces when it comes to Maya is overplayed at times. But I would still give this one 9/10 simply because it has many firsts to its credit.


It has been almost 5 years since the release of this stylish action flick.I have watched this movie almost 10 times and it a great effort by Gautham.From my perspective,I feel this movie is virtually flawless. Surya as ACP Anbuchelvan-no doubt..classy.Jyothika played her role as Maya very well.The character suits her very well.The character that caught movie-goers attention was Pandia.Jeevan played the role of Pandia very well.Brutal and fearsome.Jeevan deservedly received the Best Villain award in the ITFA 2004.The supporting cast of Daniel Balaji,Devadharshini and other performed well.

Racy screenplay,perfectly-timed dialogues and brilliant narration by Gautham.The soundtrack by Harris Jeyaraj are all chart-busters while the BGM suits the movie very well.Cinematography by R.D. Rajasekhar is rich.Peter Hein choreographed the stunts well.Anthony's editing is precise.Above all,Kaakha Kaakha is a perfect cop film filled with right doses of action and romance.

Even some Hollywood film cant compete with Kaakha Kaakha...undoubtedly.


A well-made run-of-the-mill movie with a tragic ending. Pluses: The way the story moves - begins with Soorya struggling to live followed by a long flashback about why he's there. The Music. A disinterested look at the life of policemen. Minuses: The violence and the gore, but I guess they add to the realistic effects. Still, having people's heads chopped off and sent in boxes and sacks could have been avoided.

No complaints - 7/10


Originally conceived as a solo vehicle for Dudley Moore, 'Not Only...But Also' saw his ex-'Beyond The Fringe' collaborator Peter Cook guest on the first show, and so well received was it the controller of B.B.C.-2 insisted that he be on it every week from then on. They were a classic comedy team - Cook was tall, handsome and witty, while Dudley was short, charismatic, and musically gifted. The sketch that brought the house down had them in a pub, wearing flat caps and mufflers, fantasising about movie stars such as Jane Russell and Greta Garbo. It remains one of the most hilarious skits of all time, and even when Cook corpses it still holds together well.

Those characters - idiot Pete and even-bigger idiot Dud - found their way into every episode of the show proper, seen in a different setting, such as a zoo or an art gallery. In the latter, they munched sandwiches while discussing works of art. "That Leonardo DaVinci cartoon...I don't see the joke!", says Dud. Pete points out that when it was first unveiled it probably had people in fits. Dud nearly chokes on his repast. "You really are enjoying those sandwiches!", ad libs Cook. The pair bounced their humour off each other in a way that was joyous to behold. The sketches themselves set new standards for comedy, standards that would not be matched until the arrival of 'Monty Python'.

As the show's popularity increased, so did the quality of the guest stars. Peter Sellers for instance, and John Lennon, the latter presenting a filmed item based on his poem 'Deaf Ted, Danoota, & Me'. 'One Leg Too Few' - had Dud as 'George Spigott' ( a name later re-used in the film 'Bedazzled' ), a one-legged man, who hops into the office of film producer Cook to audition for the role of 'Tarzan'. Cook tries to let him down as best as he can. "I've nothing against your right leg!", he says. "The trouble is - neither have you!".

Dud would on occasion interview the eccentric Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling ( Cook ), who when he was not teaching ravens to fly underwater, was planning on opening a restaurant called 'The Frog & The Peach'. Another classic was 'The Leaping Nuns' ( also reused in 'Bedazzled' ). But my all-time favourite has to be 'Superthunderstingcar', a wickedly funny ( and accurate ) parody of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's 'Thunderbirds'. Pete and Dud played all the roles, with the latter making a fetching 'Lady Penelope'. 'Ludwig' had Ludwig Van Beethoven as the star of a 'This Is Tom Jones' style variety show. 'The Immortal Bargo' was a spoof documentary on the life of reclusive movie star 'Emma Bargo'. In an unforgettable moment, she drove through London, bellowing through a loudhailer: "I want to be alone!".

A Season 3 feature was 'Poets Cornered' with the likes of Ronnie Barker, Spike Milligan, Barry Humphries, Willie Rushton and others suspended over a gunge tank. They each had to improvise the line of a poem, and anyone failing to make it rhyme wound up in the nasty stuff.

Three seasons were made in all, produced ( at different times ) by Joe McGrath, Dick Clement and Jimmy Gilbert. Sadly very few editions survive. To make matters worse, the scripts were destroyed as well. It beggars belief that this situation was allowed to happen.

The show ended in 1970. The comics then hit Broadway, made the infamous 'Derek & Clive' tapes, but Cook's ever-increasing alcoholism broke them apart. Eight years later, Cook announced that a new series was in the offing, but it turned out to be wishful thinking on his part. His ex-partner was making films in America, and had no intention of working with Cook again ( not at that time anyway ).

Enough footage was scraped together for a season of B.B.C.-2 repeats in the early '90's. As expected, some items had not held up as well as others. Cook died in 1995, and by way of a tribute the B.B.C put together a programme compiled from various 'Parkinson' interviews and 'Not Only...But Also' shows. It ended rather appropriately with Pete and Dud finding themselves in Heaven. "Bloody Hell!", exclaimed the latter. Moore passed on in 2002.


This docu-drama is what you would expect from Richard Attenborough, the man who gave us "Gandhi": beautifully photographed, compellingly casted, well written in the measured, literate manner that Hollywood discarded in the 30's, and scrupulously accurate. It stands out as a genre film, excelling in its portrayal of native American (or, more appropriately for its Canadian setting, "First Nations") culture and standing with "Black Robe" as a wonderfully photographed piece of Canoe Country and its culture (here, circa 1934). This idyllic portrait derives drama from its subject: Archie "Grey Owl" Belaney, a Scot raised in Hastings (England) by maiden aunts who became so obsessed with the "red indian" tales of his childhood that he went to Canada, disappeared into the woods, and became a trapper and adopted son of an Ojibway band. He was a vain man with a habit of marrying and abandoning

Indian brides, none of whom seem to have thought less of him for it, for he was also an extraordinarily charming and picaresque character. One of his wives (one smarter than he, by most accounts) propelled him into fame as a writer and early advocate for protecting the wild country of the North, and this forms the focus of Attenborough's tale. The chemistry between Brosnan and Annie Galipeau (as Grey Owl's wife Pony) is engaging and, if not firey, is nonetheless quite touching. A good film when you need some time from the madding crowd.


Pierce Brosnan will probably be the only thing familiar in Richard Attenborough's new biopic. The rest is new to international audiences: Canadian history and First Nations Culture.

"Grey Owl" is a light examination of how an man came to be adopted into the Ojibway of Northern Ontario, learning and preaching environmentalism decades before it became politically correct to do so. The film contains a love story, a moral message, and a man tortured by his past. That torture, though, is not always brought to life with the dramatic impact that it might.

Nevertheless, it is a film which holds its audience without any violence. It pays deep respect to Canada's First Nations, and presents them in a dignified and non-stereotypical manner. Brosnan's performance is somewhat stiff, but I suspect that's just how Lord Attenborough wanted him.

Thanks from a proud Canadian.


I saw this movie on the Hallmark Channel and thought it was wonderful, especially since it was based on a true man. Pierce Brosnan was very good as the loner English man who took on the persona of the half breed Grey Owl. The photography was beautiful.

This movie made me do more research into this character Archie Belaney known simple as Grey Owl. I want to read as much as I can about him. At the time I did not know Richard Attenborough had directed it. But I am not surprised. I like all his movies whether he is acting or directing. I gave it the highest rating. However, I would have liked to have seen more in the movie about WHY he took on this persona as it only showed the two aunts who raised him and his room in their house.

You can't go wrong with this movie if you are like me and enjoy a beautiful story without hearing foul language and contrived special effects every few minutes.


Recently I was looking for the newly issued Wide Screen DVD of FLY AWAY HOME and came upon interesting title that I had never heard of: GREY OWL. The fact that it was a Richard Attenborough Film caught my attention (he responsible for such fine films as GANDHI, CHAPLIN, and SHADOWLANDS). I noticed that the screenplay was by William Nicholson (author of SHADOWLANDS). This "Special Edition" was full of interesting sounding material and the price was just under $10.00 -- so I chanced it & bought it. WOW! What a beautiful film. Pierce Brosnan stars as Archie Grey Owl, a real life trapper in the 1930s, who came to love and respect the wild lands of Canada, and worked to help protect them. Brosnan (who starred in a James Bond film) gives a shaded, warm, powerful performance as does Annie Galipeau as the young woman who loves and influences his feeling for the creatures of the land -- especially the beaver. A fine score by George Fenton (THE CRUCIBLE) and beautiful photograhy by Roger Pratt add greatly to the effectiveness of the film. AND the extras on this DVD are something else! Includes two shorts made in the 1930s with the real Grey Owl as well as audio commentary tracks by Attenborough and Producer Jake Eberts; 2 Featurettes; and many other fine additions PLUS options for those having access to a PC with DVD-ROM features. GREY OWL has been released directly to DVD in the United States -- a fact that Richard Attenborough attributes to Hollywood's lack of interest in distributing something that isn't loaded with a lot of violence and sex. This is a film that not only informs and entertains but leaves you with something to think about. I had a very warm feeling at the films conclusion -- and a whole new love and understanding for beavers! GREY OWL is a very fine film -- worth checking out! This is one I look forward to sharing with others.


The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.

This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.

A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?


This film is a wonderful movie based on the life of a man called Grey Owl in 1930s Canada. I found it to be similarly riveting and heartfelt as 'Rudy' and 'Awakenings'. It picks up late in Grey Owl's life and follows him through his most tumultuous and influential period.

The film is about a Canadian Indian trapper who finds himself promoting the plight of the over-trapped Beaver. He also predicts the decrease in natural lands and the overuse of Earth's resources. This is an outrageous concept in the 1930s and surprisingly well received. He becomes a well known speaker and the masses are ready to listen.

The casting of Pierce Brosnan seems rather odd, but is not outrageous. Anyone wanting to argue that point must first watch the movie to understand. Brosnan provides a wonderful performance as does Annie Galipeau. Galipeau is a strong actress whose place beside Brosnan is refreshingly natural compared to the forced pairings in recent Bond films.

I would recommend this film to anyone interested in good drama, beautiful scenery, or environmental causes. It is a movie for families as well, however children under 10 (depending on maturity) would have trouble following the plot.


Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.

The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.

Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it.

And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl.


I know some people think the movie is boring but I disagree. It is a biography of a very complex and extraordinary person. I liked the characters in the film and think that leaving parts of Archie's life a mystery captured his humanity. I don't think the purpose of a good biography should be the detailing of someone's life but rather the complexities and relationships that make them interesting. And what is more fascinating than someone so successfully reinventing themselves? "Men become what they dream - you have dreamed well." Good job to Lord Attenborough. I also wanted to mention that Nathaniel Arcand really stood out to me as a charismatic actor and I hope to see him in more films.


All in all a good film and better for the fact that had the film not been made the story might remain hidden to the masses. Brosnan does a good job as the native American with a hidden past and the photography is stunning. To some, this may be too whimsical, to others boring - for me it is a gentle, well-told tale and perfect for family viewing. Now that's not something you get a lot of recently.


This film is wonderful in every way that modern action adventures are not. Take some time. Relax, enjoy. Think. People who see this movie as slow or plodding or dull really need to take a week off and watch it several times until their short attention span mind comes to grips with the possibility of being involved with a cause or even beautiful story in a beautiful place for no other reason than because it isn't hurrying to make the points you so emphatically need it to make in the short time alloted. At first I was apprehensive of Brosnan playing a native American. Given the story line though, I think it was apt casting. Now, back to my hermiting. -Jahfre


This is an interesting true story of Archie Grey Owl, Who dreamed of being an Indiain when he was a child until the age of 17 he was born in England then moved to Canada where he was adotped by Indiains and he writes collums in magazines and he wrote a book that caugt the attention of millions the book was of his life. But at the end he told his wife that he was not a real Indiain and she was fine with it and he died at the age of 43 two years after he went back into the wildness.


If you know the story of Grey Owl, you'll love the movie! Annie Galipeau is a great actress, and Pierce is better than never in Grey Owl. But in this movie there's no real scene of action. I think this movie should be nominated at the Oscars! Welll go see this movie, it's A CLASSIC!


well worth watching, especially with the nice twist of a journalist with integrity, you are expecting a big fall down story line as Grey Owl is unmasked as a fraud, but it is not to be and adds to the generally optimistic and uplifting theme and drama of the story and film.

This has to be Brosnan's best performance to date, he convinces admirably as the English boy playing Indians. The stand out scene is the return to his ?Aunts? where Brosnan and the two elderly lady actresses make a wonderful scene full of feeling of nostalgia and a life lost with so little dialogue, just with expressions and good direction. Perfect.

The story is so little known and the message so universal and all important it is a real pity this film did not get better recognition, maybe in time it may become a bit of a classic and a sleeper. I hope so.

Well done Dickie Attenborough and cast.


The movie is wonderful. It shows the man's work for the wilderness and a natural understanding of the harmony of nature, without being an "extreme" naturalist. I definitely plan to look for the book. This is a rare treasure!


We viewed the vcr and found it to be fascinating. Not knowing anything about this true story, I thought: "Oh, no, P.Brosnan as an American Indian ('red' Indian in the film), what a bad choice" until I discovered the truth about Grey Owl. The film does a good job of demonstrating the dignity of these native peoples and undermining the racist myths about them. And Annie Galipeau, WOW, what a beauty, and very convincing as an Indian woman (I believe she is French-Canadian; she sure reverts to the all-too familiar speech of such). In spite, of Brosnan's detached, grunting style, in the end he comes through convincingly as a passionate, dedicated man. The plot is a little weak in demostrating his conversion from trapper to animal coservationist. Good film, highly recommended.


There should be more movies about our Native Americans. I especially think that using actual real Native Americans, would be the the right thing. I know that this Archie Belaney, who was played by Pierce Brosnan he did an excellent job in portraying that character, since he was an Englishman. But my suggestion to Hollywood, is to put more American Indians into the roles, and never use anyone else. The Sioux Nation has been put on the back burner far too long. Their poverty is a disgrace to our country. It is my firm belief that our country should return the Black Hills to the Sioux. We ask Israel to return their lands to the Arabs, but we do not make any effort to do the same, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We must practice what we preach!


amazing movie I saw this movie for the first time on a flight and could not believe that I had not even heard of it before getting on that plane. while it may seem, at first to be a "chick flick", it is a film that everyone should see and will enjoy. Men, watch this movie with someone you love. You will enjoy it as much as she does and it will score you big points.


Radio was not a 24 hour 7days a week happening when I grew up in the 1930s England, so Children's Hour was a treat for me when we had batteries and an accumulator to spare for the power. The few programmes I heard therefore made a great impression on my young mind, and the 3 that I recall still are "Toytown", one about all the animals at the Zoo, and --- Grey Owl, talking about the animals he knew, which he called his "brothers". It was only in recently that I learnt that Grey Owl wasn't a genuine "Indian", but the tribute paid by the Sioux Chief makes great sense to me "A man becomes what he dreams". Would that we could all dream as world changing and beneficial as Archie Grey Owl Belaney. Would that a new Grey Owl could influence world leaders to clean up the environment.


I didn't expect much when I first saw the DVD cover. I mean, Pierce Brosnan as Grey Owl??

Ah...but then the story got underway, unfolded in a beautifully photographed and paced film. I was surprised and delighted at this (basically) true story. Made me want to read more about this fascinating character, which means, the director fulfilled his purpose, and the film was a success!


Richard Attenborough who already given us magnific films as "A Chorus Line" and "Gandhi", once more surprise us making a beautiful hymn to the Nature. Indeed, the vast and (in that time) unexplored territory of Canada helps to compose the stunning beauty of the landscapes picked up by the motion picture camera. If the movie is really based on a true story, once more becomes evidente that "men of vision" are, in truth, men that lives beyond their time, with a historical perspective that only the Time will give them reason. The cinematography is magnificient, such as the cast lead by Pierce Brosnan, whose performance is due to Attenborough's master hands. A pleasing surprise is the appearance of Annie Galipeau in the role of Archie's beloved. Movie that must appears in a list of those who really loves the Nature...


Okay, I'll admit the casting in the film is REALLY strange--part of this is due to the plot, but I still had a bit of trouble believing Pierce Brosnan playing this lead (though he really did a pretty good job).

It's based on a true story of an Englishman who went to live with the Canadian Indians in the early 20th century. He claimed to be a mixed blood Indian. He was, in fact, so successful and well thought of that people came from all over to hear his lectures and be taken on his wilderness treks--even though he was not a mixed blood Indian and all his knowledge was from books or faked! The movie centers on this and what occurred when the hoax was uncovered.

The acting and settings were great and I really liked the film (once I suspended disbelief about Brosnan). It didn't get widespread distribution--probably because it was pretty cerebral--not a Bond film nor a romance--just a really odd film about a remarkable man.


This is an excellent movie. As a Canadian who grew up with a rural lifestyle much of it is familiar , the winter, canoeing , trapping , hunting and the like. It is easy to take the familiar for granted but after watching this film a few times it has grown on me .

The story of Grey Owl is well known to many Canadians credit to director Attenborough and screenplay writer Nicholson for expanding the story.

Brosnan does well portraying a complex man , a very fine performance. Annie Galipeau is lovely in her first large role. The rest of the cast is solid.


A number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- "Young Winston", "Gandhi", "Chaplin". "Grey Owl" is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.

Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.

The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.

The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a "fraud". His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.

According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.

One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is "miscast" as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like "The Hill" or "The Molly Maguires". Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.

Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is "boring". Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like "Gandhi", and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10


We really enjoyed Grey Owl: a simple tale well told in classic Attenborough fashion: a little over-romanticized, with archetypes, humor, and a stress of dignity and values.

Beautifully shot and told at a nice pace this is the true story of Archie, an Englishman who turned native Indian, and went to live and trap in Canada.

Solid performances from all makes this film with a message easy viewing.

Two of the stars of the film are without a doubt the cutest we have ever seen - and the message is a good one with its ecoleanings. It must have been great to meet or read Grey Owl in the 1930s, a unique character and this is a fitting film tribute.


I had to see this gem twice to really appreciate all of it. When a widowed father of two interrupts his two sons' sleep with a shocking revelation, they are torn between believing him and not. As the horrifying events of this tale unfold, we learn a lot about the father, about his two sons, and about their destinies. With shocking twist after shocking twist, this film never allows for a lull in the plot. Bill Paxton plays the father, but the most notable performances are that of his older son, Fenton, played by Matthew O'Leary and his younger son, Adam, played by Jeremy Sumpter. This is one of the best thrillers that I have seen in a while, and you will want to watch this a few times to appreciate every intricate aspect of the plot. I give this film a 9/10.


This is a very dark and intriguing horror type thriller based on the idea of religious murders. The storyline centres on a deranged man who lives in Texas, US who suddenly goes on a killing spree with his two young sons after being instructed by God to redeem the world of bad people.

Bill Paxton who directs this movie plays the deranged Father who is known as the Hand of God Killer while Matthew McConaughey plays his finest performances to date as the oldest son, Fenton Meiks. The film revolves around Fenton who decides he can no longer hold the burden of his murderous childhood alone and uses flashbacks to hauntingly tell the story to FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (played by Powers Boothe).

I cannot think of many movies that literally keep the viewer chained to their seat from start to finish and this is definitely one of them. Even if you want to stop watching, you wont be able to because of the sheer power of this movie.

The directors have filmed this movie very well, and they help to set the plot through the good scenery. The acting in this movie is great but if there is any drawback it is that some parts are very powerful and may disturb some people.

Whilst the concept of this film is very dark, the young children help to portray the idea through brilliant acting. This really is a spine tingly movie and it is guaranteed to have you at the edge of your seat throughout. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys horror, disturbing and powerful movies or anyone who just wants to see something different.

8/10


Actor Paxton made his directorial debut with this chilling, dark, and competently made thriller about a widowed mechanic (Paxton himself) who ropes his two sons into participating in savage ax murders, claiming that the victims are not human beings at all but "demons", and that they have been selected by God to destroy these "demons". This is all told in flashback by one of the sons, now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) to skeptical FBI agent (Powers Boothe).

Hard to automatically forget this film; better than most serial killer features, it's a twisty and unsettling tale told in straightforward fashion with a bare minimum of cinema gimmicks. Paxton, commendably, barely shows any blood at all until near the end. Well acted by all, especially the two child actors (Jeremy Sumpter of the recent "Peter Pan" and Matt O'Leary of "Spy Kids 2" and "Domestic Disturbance"). The only reason I deducted any points at all is because I can understand that some people may find all of this hard to stomach. In any event, it's an atypical thriller with a decent script.

8/10


There is such rubbish on the cable movie channels that I hit a gem with this one. From beginning to end it had me gripped and deserves top marks.

Father of two sons hears messages from "God" to kill people who he is told are 'demons'.

When the opening credits showed the director as one of the cast that can often be a warning of a bad film; exceptionally it is the reverse here as the drama is non-stop from beginning to end.

And there is not one moment in the movie when one is not fully enthralled as there are no unnecessary or needless sub-plots, and the script is first class.

All the actors give wholly convincing performances especially the lead child actor who is exceptional.

This film is at least as good as the likes of 'Silence of the Lambs'.


The film is very complete in what it is, keeping one continuously interested with the flashbacks to childhood and growing up with such a bizarre father, and interspersing it with the tails of serial murder, one simply cannot go wrong. The very plot in itself, the very story and essence of the film, is entertaining. It is the sort of story that the director (Bill Paxton) could do so much with, and in this case, he really did do a lot with it.

From beginning to end you are kept anticipating more and more about what is happening and where the film is going, and the creativity that is behind this story is first class. I felt as if this film was exquisitely done from start to finish, and one of those rare gems that seemed to be without any boring lulls -- the action flowing neatly, quickly, and tightly from one scene to the next.

It demonstrates just how far people can go: so as to do such horrible things to their loved ones, and to do such acts of evil, in the name of 'God' when they are disillusioned as in this case. It also is sometimes interesting in its' twists & takes on the concept of morality as a whole.

Overall, this is the sort of film that one easily overlooks, but I would recommend you to not do likewise and to check this film out -- it is very much so worth your time.


Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it.


A very promising directorial debut for Bill Paxton. A very dark thriller/who-really-done-it recommended by Stephen King. This is a strong, well-conceived horror tale about a devout, but demented man in Thurman, Texas that goes on a murdering spree after getting orders from God to eliminate demons trying to control mankind. A couple of plot twists and an eerie finale makes for your moneys worth. Most of the violence you don't really see, but still enough to double up your stomach.

Director Paxton plays the twisted man to be known as the Hand of God Killer. Matthew McConaughey is equally impressive as the demented man's eldest son that ends up telling this story to a Dallas FBI Agent(Powers Boothe). Boothe, as always, is solid and flawless. Suspenseful white knuckler! Highly recommended.


The synopsis for this movie does a great job at explaining what to expect. It's a very good thriller. Well shot. Tough to believe it was Bill Paxton's directorial debut, though some shots do look EXACTLY like a storyboard version.

Still, there are a few shots that really look good and show some real imagination on the part of Paxton.

It's a solid story with some great twists at the end, several of them, all believable, all fun, and best of all, obscured well enough to make them true twists.

The child actors in the movie do a great, too. I'm usually wary of movies with kids in starring roles because all too often they come off as Nickelodeon rejects, but both these kids do a good job.

This movie is not gory. It's not very scary. But it IS very, very creepy.


Matthew McConaughey is a mysterious man waiting for Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) in his FBI office. He claims to have information about a serial killer chased by FBI. When Agent Doyle arrives in the office, he tells him that the serial killer is indeed his dead brother. Agent Doyle requests some evidence, and the man tells the story of his life, since his childhood. They were a simple family of three: his widow father Meiks (Bill Paxton), his brother and himself. One night, his father gathers the two brothers and tells them that an angel of God had just visited him and assigned his family to destroy demons. What happens next is one of the most scary movie I have ever seen.

I watched this movie four months ago on VHS, and yesterday I watched again, now on DVD. Although being a low-budget movie, the screenplay is sharp, with no flaw. The cast is outstanding, but I would like to highlight the performance of Matt O'Leary as the young Felton. It is a very difficult and complex role to be performed by a young teenager. The direction of Bill Paxton is remarkable. There is no explicit violence in this horror movie. A great debut behind the camera. I regret the Brazilian title of this movie: 'A Mão do Diabo' (The Devil's Hand'). If at least it were 'The God's Hand', it might be acceptable. But calling this movie as 'the devil's hand' is indeed ridiculous. Brent Hanley, the screenwriter, did not deserve such a lack of respect from the Brazilian distributor. This film is highly recommended. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "A Mão do Diabo" ("The Devil's Hand")


I first saw the trailer for Frailty on Yahoo Movies way back in the day, after hearing Stephen King praise it to high heaven. Not really a fan of either star, I still wanted to see it because I'm a huge thriller fan.

I was not disappointed. The acting was superb, especially from the two young boys. Usually I loathe child actors, but Young Adam and Young Fenton were excellent. Bill Paxton really did a good job of directing it too. It was beautifully shot.

One must also note the plot twists. The three twists at the end hit hard and fast, and I didn't see them coming. The final twist of the film, coupled with the gravity of what had just been revealed, gives me chills to this day, even though I've re-watched the film so many times.

A true gem.


Stunning. Absolutely stunning. This is a movie about two kids who's father suddenly has a vision. He claims an angel visits him, and tells him that they need to kill "demons". He gets instructions later, and they start rounding up the demons, which are, to the naked eye, ordinary people. They kill these so-called demons with an ax to the head, and chop them up, burying them in the rose-garden. Their father claims he can see their sins when he touches them. The movie continues, with a twist at the end.

The thing that I love about this movie, is that it perfectly captures the frailty of human perception. Is their father completely mad? Or, is he telling the truth? The audience is left to decide. Go make the judgment for yourself, and see the movie. Now.


What a real treat and quite unexpected. This is what a real thriller movie is all about. I rushed into the video shop, grabbed a movie without reading the entire blurb on the back and hoped for the best. I was totally surprised and delighted. I really enjoyed the actors and their characters. I thought they all gave a great performance and made their characters realistic. The plot was well thought out,well written and directed. It kept you interested from start to finish and never got boring for a single minute.

I highly recommend this movie for those that like thrillers, especially thrillers that are well paced and ones that keep your attention. Definitely a 10 out of 10 from me.


This could be the most underrated movie of its genre. I don't remember seeing any advertisements or commercials for this one which could be the reason why it didn't do so well at the box office. However, Frailty is an excellent and a truly original horror movie. I rank it within the top 10 most favorite horror movies on my list.

Movie begins with snapshots of photos and news articles telling us about a killer who calls himself "God's hand". And then a man walks into a police station and tells the chief officer that he knows the killer is his brother. Two of them leave together to go to a location where victims are buried which might help solve the case. During that trip, the man begins telling the story of his brother and we go back in time when the events began. Fenton and Adam are two young brothers living with their strict and religious father who, one day, claims that he has received a divine message from God asking him to kill the demons that appear to be regular human beings. He receives from God a list of names of demons to be destroyed and asks his sons to help him carry out this divine mission.

This is an absolutely horrifying and suspenseful film that will keep you at the edge of your seat. The tension runs high, innocent people (or demons?) get killed and religious experiences are questioned. It has not one but few very intelligent twists at the end. If you like this genre, I highly recommend Frailty for you. I own the DVD and it is one of my all time favorite horror-thrillers.


Bill Paxton, of Aliens, Near Dark, and Terminator fame, surprises me with his debut as director for Frailty. He hits on all cylinders, but there is one implausibility near the end that involves the FBI agent (Powers Booth) which deducts a point from this otherwise chilling and thought provoking thriller. Other than that, this movie was just fine.

Bill Paxton plays Dad. He's never given a first name, but that is not a weakness of the film. It in fact strengthens the film, allowing the viewer to see him as a sort of symbol of some kind. He has a vision one day which he says was sent from god telling him that the world is coming to an end and both he and his two sons Fenton Meiks(Matt OLeary) and Adam Meiks (Jeremy Sumpter) must fine the demons and kill them. The demons look like normal people which they kill, and this makes the viewer wonder if Dad has just lost his mind, or is he really doing god's work. There are scenes that reflect both points which adds to the confusion and gives the film more suspense.

The story is told in flashback by one of the sons who is now grown up (Matthew McConaughey) and is speaking with FBI agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Booth) who is very skeptical and rightfully so. After all it's not everyday that someone comes in to your office to tell you that he knows who the killer is.

The film has many twists, and Bill Paxton directs splendidly by keeping us guessing without losing interest. The acting is incredible. The two young leads and Paxton work great together, looking like a normal family even though they are all involved in murder. Like I said there is the one implausibility involving Powers Booth's character, but it really isn't a big thing. This was an extremely well made film involving faith and family.


McConaughey in a horror/thriller? I had to see this. I was pleasantly surprised.

The plot is told in flashback mode, and it concerns an otherwise normal and happy family of three going through a very bizarre predicament. I can't say much more without spoiling the whole movie, sorry. Just know that if you decide to watch it, you'll be, in the very least, surprised.

All the main players are very good. Bill Paxton did a great job directing those kids, and his acting is awesome. McConaughey's acting is solid throughout and fits the bill perfectly.

This movie challenges you to think. Is Dad crazy? Is there a God? Do Demons exist? How far would you go to right a wrong. And what is "right" anyway? I'm still thinking.

And thus I recommend "Frailty". 7/10 and this is one of those movies that deserves and rewards a second, or even third viewing.


Frailty is a non-gory horror film that achieves its chills by following the logic and impact of a man's delusion/obsession straight into depravity. Dad (we never learn his name) is a gentle man and loving father who's raising his sons alone after Mom died giving birth to the youngest son, Adam. The family's world flips upside down late one night when Dad rushes into the boys' room and tells them God has given him a vision. And what a vision  the entire family's job is to destroy demons, who, of course, are disguised in human form.

Proceeding from this premise, the movie is unflinching in following it. Dad kidnaps people/demons whom God has told him to destroy, binds them, lays his hand on them to see a vision of their evil, then kills them  while making his young sons watch. Fenton, the older boy, is horrified, seeing only a father who's turned into a crazed murderer. Adam, the younger, is uncomfortable, but trusts that Dad is following God's will. Eventually, Dad takes his sons on missions to abduct the "demons" that God has put on Dad's list, and finally, invites them to fully participate in God's mission for the family.

This is not, you understand, an abusive father. He loves his children. He is only following God's instructions: "This is our job now, son. We've got to do this." When Fenton, terrified and convinced his father has gone mad, says he'll report him to the police, his father explains, "If you do that, son, I'll die. The angel was clear on this." The pressure that the children are under is unbearable and tragic, and warps their entire lives.(1) The movie's structure is similar to the one used in The Usual Suspects: a story in flashback, told in a police station to a FBI agent. The moody lighting, the stormy weather, and the eerie calm in the present day add to the menace of the backstory. I wanted to believe the unfolding horror was just a story, until I remembered the real-life parallel of Andrea Yates, who believed she was possessed by Satan and could save her children by drowning them. Even then, I wanted to believe that I was watching a human tragedy, rather than a story of divine retribution.

The movie gave me no such comfort, though, as it gave strong clues at the end about the veracity of Dad's vision. And this, as much as some plot holes, posed a problem for me. Regardless of the accuracy of Dad's visions, regardless of the evil that his victims may have committed, where does anyone derive the authority to act as an angel of death? (1) Roger Ebert review, 4/12/02


This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is "Game over, man! Game over!" (from the movie "Aliens").

The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their "work." It really makes the movie believable and memorable.

Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I"m sure to love!


The movie "Frailty" is actually more of a psychological thriller than it is a horror film. It has all the trappings of a horror film but this it is not. "Frailty" is a film about perceptions of religion and realizing the differences between right and wrong.

In "Frailty", a middle-aged father (Bill Paxton) and his two sons claim to be doing the work of God. It turns out that they are a trio of notorious serial killers called "God's Hands". We watch the father kill the "demons" in some rather brutal ways while convincing his sons and himself that they are doing the work God and that what they are doing is right. He claims that he received a message from an angel who gave him specific instructions to eliminate the demons living here on earth. God has given him a list of names and in return for his "services"; he and his sons will be given protection, which basically means the police will never be able to capture them. We see all of this unfold in front of us in a very disturbing manner. But what is really disturbing about it all is the effect that it has on the two sons, particularly the oldest son, Adam. Adam himself seriously doubts the existence of a supreme being, that is until his father and a week in the cellar changes all of that. He knows that his father has obviously lost his mind and is pretty sure the same is happening to his younger brother, Fenton. Fenton, the other half of this puzzle, takes everything in as if it were his own religion. He seems trapped in his father's world of God and demons. I suppose this is because he's so young and easily impressionable. But everything that happens to these three is rather convincing, in fact, TOO convincing.

The events that occur in the film can be looked upon as a vivid hallucination that is being experienced by the three main characters. I say this because they each react to the situation in different ways and at one point in the film they each claim to see God. Dad first sees the murders as his mission. His "mission" eventually consumes him and quickly turns into an obsession with eradicating demons. In fact, his hallucination is the primary one. His "orders" and the list of names he receives are all a part of this hallucination. Watch the scene where Dad finds the ax in a barn to figure out where I am coming from. Fenton, the younger son, is easily impressed by all of this talk of demons and destruction. Since he is so young, it's easy for him to fall into his father's trap. Adam, on the other is very skeptical towards his father's actions.

***SPOILERS***

In a way, the hallucination ends when Dad is killed towards the end of the movie. (I will not say how or under what circumstances). But I will say that it is not pleasant. After his death, it fast-forwards to the present day. (The story is being told through flashbacks, as seen through the eyes of the oldest son Adam). In actuality, it is Fenton that is telling the story, not Adam as originally believed. The story is being told the way he perceived it, through his actions and his brother's actions. Fenton has gone insane and is continuing what his father started by luring the FBI agent into his trap.

Since religion is a major theme in this movie, the film also plays on how easy it is for religion to be misinterpreted by those that do not have a full understanding of it. Before Dad discovered his newfound mission, he himself did not have a clear understanding of religion nor did he fully believe in a supreme being. His sons Fenton and Adam often sang innocent little children's church hymns but yet probably did not have a clear understanding of what the lyrics meant. After the revelation of Dad's newfound mission, they both took off in separate directions - Adam remained in doubt of there being a supreme being while Fenton was gradually sucked into his father's madness.

A very good thriller that will creep the heck out of you, do not watch it alone.


This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.

Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.


Something surprised me about this movie - it was actually original. It was not the same old recycled crap that comes out of Hollywood every month.

I saw this movie on video because I did not even know about it before I saw it at my local video store. If you see this movie available - rent it - you will not regret it. The suspense builds throughout and the twist ending is excellent.


I went into this movie perhaps a bit jaded by the hack-and-slash films rampant on the screen these days. Boy, was I surprised. This little treasure was pleasantly paced with a somber, dark atmosphere. More surprising yet was the very limited amount of blood actually shown. As with most good movies, this one leaves something to the imagination, and Bill Paxton did a superb job at directing. Scenes shot inside the car as are well done and, after watching the "Anatomy of a Scene" episode at the end of the video tape, It was good to see that some of the subtle, yet wonderful things I had noticed were intentional and not just an "Oh, that looks good, keep it" type of direction. This is a moody movie, filled with grimness. Still, for the dark subject, a considerable portion of it is filmed in daylight, even some of the more disturbing scenes. The acting is exceptional (Okay, I've always been a fan of Powers Booth), and never goes over the top. Au Contraire, it is very subdued which works extremely well for this type of film. If there is any one area where this film lacks, it is in the ending, which seems just a bit too contrived, but still works on a simpler level without destroying the mood or the message of the movie. What is the message? It's something that each individual decides for themself. Overall, on the 1-10 scale, this movie scores an 8 for those who like the southern gothic genre (ie: "Body Heat" or "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil"), and about a 5 for those who don't.


It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.

They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton.


I gave this movie a 10 because it needed to be rewarded for its scary elements and actors AND my god the enging! The thing is I don't want to tell anyone anything about the acting or story because it will ruin the movie. But I will recommend that you go straight to your nearest moviestore right now and rent it! (Don't forget popcorn!)


This is a great movie that everyone should see. It plays like a Dean Koontz book.

Bill Paxton's performance was great in that it really seems like he believes in what he is saying and doing.

I don't know why viewers have to read in some kind of advocacy for religious murder in to the film. It is fiction. The ending is surprising, but fictional. So what? I think that is what makes this movie so good. SPOILER DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE. Throughout the movie, the viewer is continually shocked at the sickness of Paxton's character, the impact on the children, and the way the children handle this outrageous conduct. And then at the end, it turns out to be true. God has put him on a mission to rid the world of demons. Paxton is not clairvoyant as other viewers suggest. Sure, he is given info that he couldn't have known otherwise, but the movie goes further to show how God is "protecting" Adam through the convenient video quality problem and the complete lack of memory of the second FBI agent. The film isn't advocating Christian murder, it is merely taking the viewer on a very unexpected ride.


Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!


I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...

This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.

A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive.


My husband and I just got done watching this movie. I was not expecting it to be this good! I was really astonished at how great the story line was. I'm usually very good at figuring out twisty plots...but this one had me. I loved it! I'm going to have to watch it again before I take it back. I might even have to buy it. :)


Frailty--8/10--It's non-sensical title and "Bill Paxton Directs" headline aside, this is a pretty good old fashioned rip snorting biblical horror thriller. In the end, it may end up only being the inbred Southern Gothic cousin of Kubrick's "The Shining"---but hey, that's a pretty damn entertaining notion. It's also got a doozy of a plot twist...and a very ambiguous moral message. This is the kind of movie that years from now people will catch late at night on basic cable and scare the beejesus out of themselves watching it. Too bad director Bill Paxton had to go hire himself to star...oh well....still a devil of a good rent.


I rented this movie and watched it 20 times before I took it back to the store. Bill Paxton hired some first rate talent to make a good thriller with some interesting twists. The story is original and well written. Powers Booth and Paxton both deliver good performances. The story is told in an interesting manner with both flashbacks 20 years back, then spots in the present, alternating back and forth. This style of storytelling makes for a good thriller that can't get dull. Bill Paxton, please make more horror movies, you have the talent for it!


This is what a movie should be when trying to capture the essence of that which is very surreal. It has this hazy overtone that is rarely captured on film, it feels like a dream sequence and really moves you into a dark haunting memory. The Kids were extremely believable and I do expect some things to come of them in the future. Very natural acting for such young ones, I don't know if Bill pulled it out of them or there just that good, but no the less excellent. Bill scored as far as I'm concerned and for the comment by KevNJeff about Mr. Paxtons bad acting, what can one do in that role. He played the part rather well in my opinion. This is coming from someone who said Hamlet was good (The Ethan Hawke Version?) Wow......... Do not listen to his Comments. Great flick to make you feel really uncomfortable, if that's what you want? Cinematography gets an above the average rating also.


Hi

my name is Jessica, i'm Italian!

Some time ago I have seen this film : ' For the very first time', with Corin Corky Nemec. It was the story of Micheal and Mary Margaret. I need to know the title of the song of the most important love scene in Micheal's bedroom.

In Italy this film hasn't been programmed for many years and I don't know how to find the song. A lot of thanks for who can help me! I love this film! Is Very romantic! The soundtrack is beautiful! I love Cheryl Pollack! Jessica


if you are like me then you will love this great coming of age teen movie.i think it is up there with mischief/book of love/high school USA/shout/calender girl/crybaby/ all great movies set in the lat 50s & early 60s and it has a wonderful soundtrack.not as many songs as in some of these type of movies but still great.it is all so very funny at times and has a great love interest.all the young cast are great.i wish there were more type of these wonderful movies.my favourite movie of all time is back to the future when Marty mcfly gos back to 1955 well in these wonderful movies it stays in the fab 50s(early 60s) there are some movies of this type better than this but not many.


I was 15 years old when this movie premiered on the television. Being raised in Texas, I understood the boredom & monotony of teenage life there. This movie touched my impressionable teenage heart & I remembered it fondly through the past 12 years. I recently got to see it for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th times thanks the the LOVE channel. I still cry because the movie reaches in & touches my inner confused teenager.


This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night.


Hardly a masterpiece. Not so well written. Beautiful cinematography i think not. This movie wasn't too terrible but it wasn't that much better than average. The main story dealing with highly immoral teens should have focused more on the forbidden romance and why this was... should have really gotten into it instead of scraping the surface with basically "because mom says we can't." Some parts should have been dropped altogether or reworked to have more importance to the plight of the two main characters. Couple times i was wondering if the writer/director was a fan of George Lucas' classic American Graffiti. Not that it's wrong to be a fan of that movie but to make your movie at times look like that, i mean come on! Worst part of this was that Madchen Amick had such a small part, i mean double come on!! She was the only one, in one or two lines, who actually tried a southern accent. (Take a good listen, it was there even though her character was from California! DOH!!) Maybe if she was the star others could have followed and we would have had a more authentically sounding movie. Oh well, what can ya do when you have a director who's just a director and not an artist, also. Too bad. Overall i give this a B- and that's being a little generous 'cause i'm partial to Ms. Amick.


Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand.


If people didn't know who Barbra Streisand was before this,...(is that POSSIBLE?)...they sure knew who she was after!

This show went on to win 5 Emmys, & stands out as one the best things Streisand has ever done.

It's made up of 3 acts....

ACT I...Barbra singing standards from room to room, filled with musicians, including a segment where she is a little girl again,all ending with a splendid version of her signature song,(at the time)..."People".

ACT II....A musical tour of Bergdoff-Goodman,while Barbra Sings poverty songs..it's better than it sounds...

ACT III.....The best part, Just Barbra,musicians,& some great songs,like....."Happy Days Are Here Again",& a "Funny Girl" medley....

all in all, a great part of television history,made by one of the greatest performers in the world!


In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television.


This was Barbra Streisand's first television special and is "must see" viewing for any Streisand fan. Even non-Streisand fans will enjoy this highly energetic and entertaining piece of entertainment history. Performers like this only come our way once in a lifetime. Brilliant!