This movie works because it feels so genuine. The story is simple and realistic, perfectly capturing the joys and anxieties of adolescent love and sexuality that most/all of us experienced during our teen years.

The actors are as natural as figures in a documentary but are as convincing and as charismatic as seasoned performers. The dialogue is fresh and honest... and thankfully not filled to the brim with cutesy pop culture references. Also, the cinematography is at once gritty and beautiful, bringing the Lower East Side setting to life in a very tangible way.

On an artistic level, I love this movie because it reminds me of great Italian neo-realism films like The Bicycle Thief and La Strada. Movies rarely feel as "real" as this does ... or as Bicycle Thief did. And the only other movie I've seen that treats teen sexuality with the same level of seriousness is Elia Kazan's Splendor in the Grass. Writer/director Peter Sollett deserves tremendous praise. This film is quite an achievement.

On a personal level, I am always glad to see a movie that treats members of ethnic America with love and respect. As an Italian-American, I hate the way my own people come off in the cinema (as racist, womanizing, criminal geniuses in irritatingly popular epics), and my aggravation on this count makes me acutely sensitive to other groups and their awful silver screen representations. Hispanics and Asians in particular seem cursed to playing villains in Westerns and action movies. (Good thing Gong Li didn't try to become famous in America!)

Of course, thanks largely to the rise of indie pictures, and the influence of Miramax, we are seeing a few more pictures about ethnic characters here and there ... but Raising Victor Vargas is easily one of the best. While I do really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is a refreshing change that Raising Victor Vargas is played straight (with less exaggerated and broadly-drawn characters) while still being very funny in its own right. Finally! Latino characters worthy of note. I have a feeling that this is a film that will be remembered.

Of course, now that he has made this wonderful picture about a family from the Dominican Republic, I hope Peter Sollett gets around to making a movie about Italians soon! :) - Marc DiPaolo


Raising Victor Vargas is a movie you definitely need to see. It was very heart felt and had a lot of humor that gets you sucked right in. It is so much like real life with what teenagers have to go through. Victor, a cocky teen, but with a good heart at the end deals with love in all the right places dealing with girls and family. At the end Victor learns the true meaning of love after dealing with a old fashioned grandmother and a girl who he wants to use is actually using him too.I recommend people to watch this movie because it will be like you are watching a real family. Thats how much feeling this movie has. One heart felt moment was when Victor's grandmother throws victor out over something simple. Victor was really heart and couldn't believe that she would do something like that. It made me feel real sorry for him like it was real. Overall I give this movie a B+


There are plenty of reviews on this page that will explain this movie's details far more eloquently than I could; but I would like to offer a simple review for those who occasionally go to the movies for more than entertainment. Raising Victor Vargas is so true you will believe it. This flick gets inside your head.


One more of those brilliant young men who went all out and dared to make a teen romance film( can i actually call it that?- it would invoke the devil out of its fans)on a micro budget but packed with such taste, sensitiveness and maturity. Peter Sollett- you deserve more admiration and respect.Thanks once again for demonstrating to the powers that be in the "industry" that stereotypes can be flushed down the toilet. One location,a handful of rich characters, low budget,good acting(and that too amateurs),decent lighting - worshippers of true indie cinema should watch more of this and STOP watching...well...you know what.


I'm surprised how many people give this move less than 7 stars.

But they just don't understand the movie.

The story is about growing up in a difficult situation.

There is a crazy grandmother who really wants the best for your grandchildren.

And there's good reason why so many critics like this movie.

And the reason is because they understand the movie.

I feel sorry for the low scores given by some people.

I wish I could just write a brief summary of a movie but IMDb requires you to write 10 lines.

I frankly don't have anything else to say.


This film captures the true struggle with identity that is ongoing in our teenage years. It is really moving and it feels strangely like a documentary-not contrived but very real. It is very interesting and unsettling


For what it is, "Raising Victor Vargas" is about as close to perfection as a film can get. Either sheer genius from a fledgling auteur or just one of those lucky mixes where everything clicked (probably some of each), this simple little slice-of-urban-life ethnic first love flick fleshes out its young characters with such depth you can almost read their minds. The film begins with a strong flavor of "street" but works its way into a Latino family affair and then focuses on a story which speaks volumes about the uncertainty of youth and the profoundly natural desire to love another. In my experience, never has so much been done with so little (cast of tyros, novice director, etc.). Praised by the critics but not for everyone, "Raising Victor Vargas" is recommended for indie lovers and realists into simple tales rich in humanness. (A)


This film is underrated. I loved it. It was truly sweet and heartfelt. A family who struggles but isn't made into a dysfunctional family which is so typical of films today. The film didn't make it an issue that they have little money or are Dominican Republican the way Hollywood have.

Instead the issue is Victor is immature and needs to grow up. He does, slowly, by the film's end. He has a ways to go, but it was a heartfelt attempt to move forward. His grandmother is very cute and the scene where the little boy throws up had me laughing for the longest time. A truly heartfelt indie


Not as bad a film as i thought it would be.

It has a good cast.Nice to see Roger Moore back on screen as well as the use of other British actors.

Would like to see more of Olivia D`Abo in future projects.Maybe starring opposite her cousin the sexy Maryam D`Abo.

Also a good use of unseen locations such as Luxembourg.

Hopefully we will see more UK-European co-productions like this.


The cast is excellent, the acting good, the plot interesting, the evolvement full of suspense...but it is hard to cram all those elements into a film that is barely 80 minutes long. If more time was taken to develop the plot and subplots, it would have a much better effect. Another 30 minutes of substance would have made this a very good film rather then just a good one.


This movie was pretty good. The acting was great, and there were some really great actors in it like, Buchholz and Roger Moore. This film is full of surprises. Confusing at times...yes, but the twists and turns of the plot always keeps you in suspense. The only thing that this movie had too much of was exploding cars.


I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating.


WWE was in need of a saviour as Wrestlemania 14 rolled around. The departure of Bret Hart and subsequent evaporation of the Hart Foundation had left the Vile D-Generation X stable unchallenged in the WWE. Their despicable leader Shawn Michaels had stolen the title from Hart thanks to the interference of Vince McMahon and, with help from his cohorts Triple H and Chyna had systematically taken out anyone who challenged his supremacy. But at the Royal Rumble a new contender had emerged. Stone Cold Steve Austin. Hated by McMahonagement, Austin had DX worried. So worried in fact that they'd enlisted the help of "The Baddest Man on the Planet" Mike Tyson as a special enforcer. Austin would have the odds firmly against him in his title match with Shawn Michaels.

But first, there was an undercard to get through which kicked off with the Legion of Doom winning a forgettable 15 team battle Royal to become NO.1 contenders for the tag titles. I'd actually forgotten this match existed until I rewatched the PPV. No very good and really highlighted the lack of depth in the tag division at that period in time.

Next match saw the Light Heavyweight title defended by Champion Taka Michonoku against Aguila. The WWE had established the Light Heavyweight Title to compete with the strong Cruiserweight Division in WCW. It was not successful and this was the only time the title was ever defended at Wrestlemania. Short match, going about five minutes, and in fact too short for much to be achieved. What little they did was exciting and this was a nice little match which saw Taka retaining his title.

OK, our next match saw DX member Triple H defending the WWE European title, which he'd won in farcical fashion from Shawn Michaels on RAW in December and hadn't defended on PPV, against Owen Hart, the Sole Survivor. Triple H got a big entrance with the DX band there to perform his theme song. Chyna accompanied Triple H to ringside, but was then handcuffed to WWE Commissioner Sgt Slaughter. Triple H and Owen have a nice little match, before Chyna interfered causing a low blow on Hart which leads to Triple H retaining the title. Good match, could have been great had it gone slightly longer.

But of course we wouldn't want to take time away from our next match which saw real life husband and wife Marc Mero and Sable defeat Goldust and Luna Vachon in the first mixed tag match at Wrestlemania in 8 years. And, in all honesty, it wasn't worth the wait. While not terrible, the match was in no way memorable either. This was the nearing the end of Mero's only run in the WWE and the main purpose was to continue the disintegration of his relationship with Sable.

Next up we saw Ken Shamrock flip out and cost himself the Intercontinental Championship as he destroyed IC Champion The Rock, but then refused to let go of his ankle lock submission hold, resulting in the referee reversing his decision. This was a short match, but decent for what it was.

Next saw the first good match of the night as WWE Tag Team Champions the New Age Outlaws lost their titles to Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie in a fun dumpster match. The decision was overturned the following night as Cactus and chainsaw had thrown the Outlaws into a dumpster backstage, rather than the one being used in the match, but this was still a fun match.

NOw it was time for the highly anticipated first ever meeting between Kane and his brother the Undertaker. Kane had cost Undertaker the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble and then "killed" him when he helped Shawn Michaels lock Undertaker in a casket and set him on fire as revenge for the Undertaker burning down their parents house and leaving him horribly disfigured years before. This was a decent match and told a nice story as the Underataker absorbed everything Kane could throw at him and then knocked him out with three tombstones to end the match.

This left only the main event which saw WWE Champion face Steve Austin with Mike Tyson as the guest enforcer. Michaels had suffered a debilitating back injury in his match with the Undertaker at the Royal Rumble and was remarkable in this match despite his physical limitations. Triple H and Chyna were banished to the back in the early going after interfering from the outside. The match ended with Austin ducking an attempt at Sweet Chin Music and hitting the Stone Cold Stunner with the ref down. TYson then came into the ring to count the three, celebrating the win with Austin and then knocking out Michaels after the match. It turned out Tyson and Austin were together and the cat had been playing with the mouse all along.

That was the final PPV match for Shawn Michaels for four and a half years. It helped establish Austin as the biggest star in the wrestling business and the mainstream publicity garnered by Tyson's appearance proved a crucial turning point in the WWE's battle with WCW. Austin would go on to become the biggest star in WWE History, and along with the Rock, Mick Foley, the Undertaker and Triple H lead the WWE through the period where they would gain their highest level of cultural relevance. And it all started here at Wrestlemania 14.


Wrestlemania 14 is not often looked as one of the great Wrestlemania's but I would personally put it, in my top 5, if not the top 3. It has so many great things, and it truly signified the birth of The Attitude Era, which was WWE's best era, in my opinion. HBK has the heart of a lion, and him putting over Austin like he did, on his way out, was pure class on his part. It has one of the hottest crowds you will ever see, and it has J.R and The King at their announcing best!.

Matches.

15  team battle royal LOUD pop for L.O.D's return. I'm not a fan of battle royal's, and this is yet another average one. Very predictable, even when you 1st see it, it's obvious L.O.D would win. Looking at Sunny for 8 or so minutes though, definitely helps.

2/5

WWF Light Heavyweight Championship

Taka Michinoku|C| Vs Aguila.

Taka gets a surprising pop, with his entrance. Fast, high-flying, and very exciting. If these two had more time, they would have surely tore the roof off, with their stuff. Taka wins with the Michinoku driver.

3 1/2 /5

WWF European Championship.

Triple H|C| Vs Owen Hart Stipulation here, is Chyna is handcuffed to Slaughter. Nice pop for Owen, mixed reaction for Trips. A really, really underrated match, that ranks among one of my favorites for Wrestlemania, actually. The two mixed together very well, and Owen can go with anybody. Trips wins, with Chyna interference.

4/5

Mixed Tag match. Marc Mero&Sable Vs Goldust&Luna. Defining pop for Sable, unheard of that time, for woman. Sable actually looks hot, and the crowd is just eating her up!. Constant Sable chants, and them erupting almost every time she gets in the ring. Not bad for a Mixed tag match, it had entertaining antics, and passed the time well. Sable's team wins, when Sable hits the TKO.

2 1/2 /5

WWF Intercontinental Championship. Ken Shamrock Vs The Rock|C|. Before I review the match, I'd like to note The Rock showed off his immense potential, with his interview with Jennifer Flowers, before his match. Nice pop for Shamrock, big time heat for The Rock. Too disappointingly short, and I thought the ending was kinda stupid, though Shamrock's snapping antics were awesome to see, and the crowd went nuts for it. Rock keeps the title, when The Ref reverses the decision.

2/5

Dumpster match, for The WWF Tag Team Championship

Catcus Jack&Terry Funk Vs The New Age Outlaws. The Outlaws are not as over, as they were gonna be at this time. Crowd is actually somewhat dead for this, but I thought it had some great Hardcore bits, with some sick looking bumps. Cactus and Terry win the titles in the end.

3/5

The Undertaker vs Kane. Big time ovation, for The Undertaker. Much better than there outing at Wrestlemania 20, and for a big man vs big man match, this was really good. It was a great all out brawl, with The Undertaker taking a sick looking bump, through the table. WWE was smart, by making Kane looking strong, even through defeat. After 2 tombstone kick out's, Taker finally puts him away, with a 3rd one.

3 1/2 /5

WWF Championship.

Special Guest Enforcer "Mike Tyson"

HBK|C| Vs Steve Austin. Big heat for Tyson. Crowd goes ape sh*t for Austin, definitely one of the biggest pops I have heard. Mixed reaction, for HBK. This is truly a special match up, one of the greatest wrestlemania main events in history, you can tell when J.R is even out of breath. HBK gives it his all, in what was supposed to be his last match, and Austin has rarely been better. The animosity and electricity from the crowd is amazing, and it's as exciting as it gets. Austin wins with the stunner, with Tyson joining 3:16 by knocking out Michaels. Austin's celebratory victory, is a wonder to behold, with one of the nosiest crowd's you will ever see, King said it right, they were going nuts.

5/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 14 is one of the greatest for real. It has everything you want in a Wrestlemania, and truly kick started the Attitude Era. This is very special to me, because it was the 1st Wrestlemania I ever saw, back in 98. "The Austin Era, has begun!"

9 1/2 /10


Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match.


This Wrestlemania just didn't do it for me. While some things, such as the battle royal and involvement of celebrities were a throwback to the good old days, so to speak, it seemed to be more of a highbrow "In Your House" than anything else. Above average...worth it for several matches such as the tag team title match, although worthy of note is that the title change meant nothing, as it was reversed the next night.


This is just the best movie of all times! Sorry, Hollywood! I've seen it in early 70's, as soon as it appeared on the Bulgarian TV, and I loved it immediately (I was 14 then). 25 years later I bought it on a video tape, and a few months ago it finally appeared on a DVD here in Bulgaria. I live with this movie 35 years already, and so do all my friends and my family. My son was a teenager when he saw it for the first time, and he loved it immediately, too (and this is the generation that grew up watching practically only Hollywood movies and not speaking or understanding Russian at all!). What makes this masterpiece of Danelia so special? It's difficult to say, as it is difficult to describe what the beauty is... But the fact is that you can watch this movie dozens of times with the same pleasure as it was the first time. I can't remember any other such movie, no matter how many millions it cost or how great the cast was... Chapeau, Maestro Danelia! Bulgaria loves you!


Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities.


This is my first comment on IMDb website, and the reason I'm writing it is that we're talking about ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER! 'Ne goryuy!' will make you laugh and cry at the same time, you will fall in love (if you're not a fan yet!) with Georgian choir singing tradition, and possibly you will accept the hardships of your own existence and just feel good after watching it:) What I like a lot about this film is that actors in the non-leading roles create vivid and memorable characters and are just as interesting and important as the central character. The film is starring Vahtang Kikabidze (who is great), but you will remember every single face around him in the film. You will find yourself quoting their lines, that have become household names for so many Russian-speaking people. A film to live with. Simple, yet deep, you will want to watch it again and again.


The quintessential Georgian film of Georgi Danelia, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't Grieve is loosely based on the novel by French writer Claude Tillier (1801-1844) "Mon oncle Benjamin" The novel takes place in the country side of the 18th Century France. The Great French Revolution is still ahead but some of its stormy signs are present in society. Benjamin, the local doctor is a soul of a local society, the educated, friendly, democratic person who often treats the poor for free. It makes him very popular with the locals but most certainly does not help with his bank account. He is in love with a beautiful Manette who is also crazy about him but is being watched closely by her father who called his daughter "his small capital" and is determined to protect her virginity until the moment the marriage contract has been signed... I never read the book, and from description it sounds like a charming very French novel but I am fascinated with the results of moving the characters and some plot elements from 18th Century France to the beginning of 20th century Georgia-Grusiya. I would think that it was Danelia who came up with all the colorful memorable characters that feel so much at home in his native Georgia-Grusiya, the land of long and wonderful traditions, including Art of making and drinking wine, rare music talent that all Georgians seem to possess, very unique humor, and high code of honor. When we watched the film last night together with my husband, he said, what a great example of an Art film, and I so agree with him. Don't Grieve is a perfect Art movie, visually beautiful, deep but funny, at times sad and philosophical but never in a preachy arrogant way but optimistic, celebrating life with all its beauty and sadness, full of interest, loving irony and understanding for its slightly eccentric but very human characters. What is the most important, the film is warm and gentle, it does not look down at its viewers as some of the Art pictures do. You don't have to be a movie buff to love it, to live with it, to smile and sigh at it, to follow the good-hearted young Doctor Benjamin (first role in a Danelia film of famous singer and actor Wachtang Kikabidze with whom Danelia would go on to make two more films including one of my all time favorites, Mimino) on his journey through the roads and mountains of Georgia. Or to be a guest on one of a kind party where the friends gather to celebrate life of the old doctor Levan who wanted to be a guest on his own wake, to hear what his friends have to say about him when he dies while he is still alive, and who gets to choose which color he prefers for his coffin. When I watched the film I thought that it is a sort of movie that Federico Fellini might have liked. I was not surprised at all to find the article about Danelia where he names Fellini his number one director. I also found out that according Danelia, the famous Soviet directors, Leonid Gaiday (the creator of many beloved comedies) and Sergei Paraszhanov (the visionary whom I don't have to introduce loved another Danelia's film, fairy tale about American boy Huck Finn, Sovsem propashchiy) felt and spoke negatively about Don't Grieve while Fellini praised it highly. I dare go a little further and just guess that perhaps Maestro Fellini kept in mind some images and the very aura and atmosphere of Don't Grieve when he was making Amrarcord in 1973. Just a thought, because there is something essential that connects both films. Both Artists came back to their roots, to the places that they love deeply, to the people they remembered, loved and wanted to honor. Both films have a lot of smiles through the tears. Both are Art movies that would get directly to the hearts of the viewers. Both are masterworks.

I think I am going to add Georgi Danelia to the list of my favorite directors. He has made some of the brilliant pictures in my most favorite genre of dramedy, even tragicomedies that are funny and bitter sweet, poignant and subtle, earthy and uplifting, gentle and shining. When I looked up the list of the movies he has written/directed, I was amazed at the fact that he has not made a single bad film since he started back in 1960 with the Award winning story of a young boy, Seryozha. Many of Danelia's films are among my favorites, as I am sure they are among his legions of fans. The man behind 'Seryozha, Sovsem propashchiy (1972) which is an adaptation of Mark Twain The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 33, Ya shagayu po Moskve (1964) aka Walking the Streets of Moscow, Ne goryuy (1969) aka Don't grieve, Afonya (1975), Mimino (1977), Osenniy marafon (1979) aka Autumn Marathon or Sad Comedy which is a very fitting title for this movie as well as for the whole genre that Danelia practically invented, and the cult favorite for over 20 years Kin-Dza-Dza (1986), is brilliant and deserves our true love and genuine gratitude for the unforgettable moments of cinematic happiness.


this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie


This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.

I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.

And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show.


This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were "I Left My Neck In San Francisco", "Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea", "The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly" and "When You Wish Upon A Star Creature". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as "Rocky Mountain YIIII!" and "The Ransom Of Scooby Chief". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.


some people think that the second series was where scooby was ruined..i disagree totally.the shows quality did not go up or down and scrappy ,win my opinion,as a very good chrecter.i looked at a poll on jumpedtheshark.com and 72% of people said scrappys second series was scoobys downfall.OK so loads said yes but 28%still cant be wrong.I do like the way most of the episodes focused on comedy.i believe the show would have gone rubbish if it was the same 5 people/dog solving mystery in same formula.scrappy was a breath of fresh air to the show.sure,some people tuned out but when scrappy was introduced viewing figures DOUBLED.Back to the show.All the episodes and segments were very funny.i was Intriguded by the yabba shorts and .But at the end of the day its a matter of opinion if you like scrappy or not is a matter of opinion,there is certainly no fact involved.But in my OPINION this was a superb series that gave a beginning to tire show a new formula and lease of life.Nuff said.


Let's cut to the chase: If you're a baby-boomer, you inevitably spent some time wondering at the fact that, in 1976, McCartney had the gumption to drop in on John's city hermit life and spend the day with him. You also certainly wondered how things went. I heard the exact same reports that the writer of this film heard, from John's and Paul's perspective, and I admit that I reconstructed the meeting in pretty much the same way this film does. But none of my imaginings could have bought tears to my eyes the way this incredible piece of work and acting does. I found it amazingly lifelike, perfectly plausible and 100 % saccharin-free. Now, can anyone explain why I didn't hear of this masterpiece before it was shown by the CBC last night? I mean it's already three years old, for goodness sake! And yes, if you're a Beatles fan, this is a must-see performance! Even the subtle paraphrasing of Beatles' melodies in the background is inspired.


Being the Beatlemaniac that I am, I approached Two Of Us with a combination of fear and fascination. Having seen 'In His Life: The John Lennon Story', I was quite concerned that Two Of Us will turn out no better. The fact that Aidan Quinn and Jared Harris look absolutely nothing like John Lennon and Paul McCartney  even with some make-up and proper hairdos  didn't help one bit.

But I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised. It's probably thanks to the involvement of Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed Let It Be in 1970 and consequently probably knew John and Paul quite well, that the characters and the dialogue came across as convincing as they did. (The writing credit for Two Of Us is given to a man named Mark Stanfield, of whom I know absolutely nothing; I feel confident that director Lindsay-Hogg had more than a bit to do with the script.) Two Of Us is not a biography of the Beatles; it has very little plot, in fact, and takes place all in one day in New York City. What it does is imagine a meeting between John and Paul in 1976, while John lived in New York. That meeting is entirely fictitious, of course  though it can't truly be disproved that such a meeting actually took place. But through that imagined conversation it gives us a glimpse into the personalities of these two great musicians  their intelligence, their sense of humor, their different reaction to stardom, and most of all their relationship; what made them such a great team, and what broke them up.

Since it's a talk movie, nothing much except for dialogue between two characters for an hour and a half, it's likely to bore all but true fans of the Beatles; but it's a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling, and is both informative and touching. For those interested in these two musical giants, very quickly you'll get over the shock of how different the actors look from their counterparts and feel like John and Paul had come to life  so intimate and convincing is the script, and so committed are the actors. Two Of Us gives you priceless insight into the lives of two geniuses, and a tale that is both sad and funny. Most certainly recommended.


This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America.


I admit I had some trepidation when I first saw the previews for this film. Was VH-1 treading on hollow ground here? I mean, Harris and Quinn don't really look or even sound like John or Paul. But I have to admit, this film really surprised me. It's far from the exploitation film I expected. Instead, it's a character study, a low-key, whimsical, and ultimately bittersweet look at friendship, and the ultimate lesson we all learn: it's hard, if not impossible, to capture what we once had, and what has passed us by.


Very Slight Spoiler

 This movie (despite being only on TV) is absolutely excellent. I didn`t really pay attention to the differences in looks or accents, so I can`t really comment on that. The acting in this was so good I had to pinch myself and say "Remember, it`s only a movie, this DIDN`T REALLY HAPPEN". As I sat and listened to Harris and Quinn talk, I knew that it was exactly what John and Paul would be talking about had they actually had this meeting. The offhanded comments and burns from John were right on with his character(especially in the restaurant!), as was his depression while Paul was very easy going and laid back. Both actors did and excellent job and I was thrilled to have seen this movie. It`s a wicked experience for any Beatles fan. And prepare for a few surprises!


Recently shown on cable tv the movie opens with a disclaimer distancing itself from any co-operation of real life persons; that in itself is an eye catcher. Yet the script and acting from the main characters is superb and I found myself engrossed throughout.Due in no small way to the crisp, thoughtful and interesting dialogue.The film is about a meeting on one day between two real life musical "legends" who formerly composed together then seperated.The film captures the essence of their lives and philosophies, in a story which proffers an explanation for their initial "split". What is so impressive is that the actors give such seemingly realistic portrayals of the characters they play,faults and all, that this viewer at least was left believing I was witnessing a true event in almost every detail. The great skill of this play is that with astute writing and fine acting a movie basically about "two of us" talking can make an excellent picture. Worthy of at least an 8 out of 10.


Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.

It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!

The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.

THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:

As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.

It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.

In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.

If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested.


This is one of the few movies released about a "what if" type of situation that made me think. It was amazing to hear them speak to each other, and reminisce about all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things that happened between them. I actually think that there is a very good possibility this occurred like the movie implies, and they actually made peace with each other. Those are good memories for every fan to hang onto, and to ask what actually happened between them would be selfish. What an AMAZING movie this was. The comedic aspects of the movie were wonderful. To think that they were together to patch things up between them in such a way is a comforting thought to people who wish they had a chance to clear the air with someone they didn't get to. To see John as such a caring, laid back character was refreshing from hearing all of the trash that was spoken about him...


I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the "Two of Us" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what "might have been." Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances.


I still wonder why I watched this movie. Admittedly, before I viewed this film, I knew practicly nothing about the beatles. I didn't even know all their names! All I knew was that they had a ton of fans, they had some albums that some people claim to be the greatest ever, they broke up, John married Yoko Ono, and John was murdered.

Also, VH1 isn't even my favorite music station, MTV is. Still, for some reason or another I decided to watch it, not expecting much. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much! The dialogue was written and handled very well with the occasion of a slight accent mess up. This is very important, because John and Paul talking is pretty much the whole film, allthough they are taken outside to explore more possibilities, and to keep you watching. Jared Harris and Adien Quinn give good performaces,overall.

The ending was also very smart. I enjoyed how the movie gets you excited about the SNL performace, and then slaps you over the head and makes you realize that it would be better if they just let it go, and end it on a good note. My favorite moment is probably the touching rooftop scene.

Overall, I recommend this film to almost everyone. It is a very good way of settling your curiosity of what could have happened if 6 years after the break up Paul just showed up on John's doorstep. Which is probably the main reason of my viewing this film, settling my curiosity on who the beatles really were and what could have happened to them after the breakup.


this was a real guilt pleasure ... i saw the trailer and all the advertising, so i figured 'why not check out this vh1 movie?' and, as they used to say on t.v., 'i can't believe i watched the whole thing!' quinn and harris were believable beatle boys, and, although the accents were sort of over-the-top and difficult to decipher at times, i found the dialogue believable as well. the film touched upon the tenuous relationship of len/mc and showed how, deep down, they were simply two guys who grew up close together and shared a passion for music - coming at it, though, with different sets of issues and personal needs. you find yourself wishing they'd hopped in the cab to snl for an impromptu reunion that would have knocked the world's socks off, but you also gain a greater appreciation for why they didn't


I sat down to watch this film with much trepidation and little hope. I didn't think it would be possible for this film to live up to its subject matter. But it absolutely did, and then some. First, I must say that Jared Harris did an extraordinary job as John Lennon. At times it seemed that Harris was channeling Lennon. The resemblance was often uncanny, and he clearly studied Lennon's mannerisms and vocal inflections. Aiden Quinn was quite good as McCartney, also bearing a striking resemblance to Macca, although he did occasionally trip over his Scouse accent.

This work of fiction was well-written and well-directed. It was pure fantasy, of course, but sometimes I felt like a voyeur peeking through a keyhole at this reunion. The rooftop scene was especially moving, as McCartney told Lennon what he had never heard as a child--that he was worthy and important, and it could never be his fault that he was abandoned by his parents. I also enjoyed the scene in the park where the pair of them danced with absolute abandon to the reggae band!

My one complaint would be this: I am not so sure that John was as caustic as he was portrayed in the film at this stage in his life. He had settled in to his domestic situation quite nicely, and he was actually known to be quite friendly when approached by fans. Only a few years later, he was very friendly when he was first approached by his assassin for an autograph on the day he was murdered.

Mostly this film served to stir up those feelings again about what might have been had John lived a bit longer. I am quite sure the Beatles would have come back together at some stage. And I am quite certain that Lennon and McCartney would still be friends today.

Well done, VH1. I will watch it again and again.


*WARNING* Spoilers ahead... The writers of this story knew these men very well. The actors, likewise, portrayed them very well. The result is that by the end of the film you feel like you're actually watching John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The expected tensions are there, especially in the awkward first moments. But as the two begin to loosen up, the old camaraderie that made the Beatles work so well begins to show through. The bitterness is still there, and interrupts at times, but by the time John gets the idea to take Lorne Michaels up on his offer to pay the Beatles the gag sum of $3000 to appear on "Saturday Night Live", the two could be the same boyish pranksters that terrorized Liverpool together as teens, and survived playing the rough nightclubs of Hamburg to rise to Superstardom. But in the end, this wonderful fantasy grounds us gently. We are reminded why a Beatles reunion was most likely never possible even before Lennon's assassination: The two driving forces of the group outgrew each other.


I am a big Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle is Paul and my least favorite is John. I already knew quite a bit about the Beatles music and the truth behind the breakup, as well as things like John Lennon's family and Paul's band Wings. I was curious to see how this movie would handle the relationship between John and Paul so many years after the breakup.

I was not disappointed by this movie. Although the story itself is fiction, many of the references that the two musicians used were very accurate. These included how Yoko Ono would always be with John wherever he went, the Wings song "Silly Love Songs" being the number one hit that year and the concert on the roof of Apple Studios playing music from the album "Let It Be."

The actors did a very good job in playing John and Paul. The accents could had used maybe a bit more work, but they seemed to act a lot like I've read the two former-Beatles used to act like. I also liked the dialogue between them, which was basically what the entire movie was.

The ending at first disappointed me, but the more you think about it the more you will appreciate it, especially since this was how it really went in real life. They also show the fantastic skit from "Saturday Night Live" in which the Beatles are offered $3,000 to perform on the show. (as compared to the $220 million others were offering them) Overall, I was not disappointed with this movie. It does really give you more of a feel for why the Beatles broke up and why they never got back together.


This was the first televised episode of the Columbo series (although it was filmed after "Death Lends a Hand")and it heralded one of the most successful TV series in history.

Jack Cassidy (who played the murderer in the series three times) enthuses smugness, arrogance and self-assuredness in equal measure here, as Ken Franklin, one half of a mystery writing team who hatches an elaborate plot to kill off his partner, Jim Ferris (played by Martin Milner) who decides to terminate their professional relationship, leaving Franklin exposed as merely a good publicist rather than a prolific writer.

The initial murder set-up is fantastic and Cassidy's performance facilitates an arguable accolade that he was the best Columbo murderer in the series.

Peter Falk is wonderfully understated in his role as Columbo and the character's inherent traits and oddities, which are underlined by a seeming slowness and absent-mindedness, contrast particularly well with Cassidy's character's extreme smugness: one of their early scenes together where Ken Franklin fabricates a motive for the killing through Jim Ferris's non-existent expo-see of identifying hit-men operating in the underworld exemplifies this very well. Franklin hints to Columbo this potential motive and Columbo (purposely or ignorantly) fails to latch on, forcing Franklin to express his disappointment in a markedly patronising manner and compare him unfavourably with the detective in the books, Mrs. Melville.

Also, noteworthy is the early directorial contribution of 24 year old Steven Spielberg. Notwithstanding, some elementary inclusions of cameras shadowing the actors and actresses, he adds some stylish and elaborate touches to uphold the general professionalism of the episode. One particularly stark image is of Jim Feriss's dead body lying on the settee, almost dark in the foreground, as Ken Franklin raises a glass to him in the background after he finishes answering a phone call to Ferris's distraught wife. I have no doubt that working to a restrictive 10-14 day schedule, Spieberg's efforts should not be underestimated.

Unfortunately, the event of the second murder, necessitated by a blackmailing scheme which is plotted by a female friend of Franklin's (and ironically referred to as "sloppy" by Columbo in his climatic summing up) takes the steam out of the whole thing. The cutting edge of the plot is compromised and the screen-time between Falk and Cassidy inexcusably lessens at this point to perhaps help the script-writer (Stephen Bocho) out of a tight corner, since he cannot singularly develop the story without another murder.

The climax is the most disappointing aspect of this episode. The initial banter and exchange of words between Falk and Cassidy is strongly and effectively executed, but it merely advertises the fact that it should have happened more in the episode. The main aggravation lies with the sealing clue (if it can be called a clue): Cassidy's character's hitherto smugness and arrogance is amazingly expelled by a clue that really does little to imply his guilt; and once this is mentioned, he capitulates in a rather unspectacular and uncharacteristic fashion.

All in all, a bold opening to the series, which inevitably advertises and foretells all that is good about Columbo, and, conversely, the problems associated with such ingenuity, i.e maintaining the high standards and particularly, creating a credible and suitably intelligent ending.


This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself.


The story for the first-aired television installment of "Columbo" is simple: one-half of successful mystery-writing team does away with the other, frames an unseen Mafia group, is blackmailed by an admirer, does away with the admirer, and is tricked up by the stalwart Columbo.

With that said, this is still one of the most entertaining in the show's history, benefiting tremendously by the work of the late Jack Cassidy and star Peter Falk.

Besides the notability of being directed by a young Steven Spielberg, the episode also has a air of the macabre because of the future of two of its stars: Cassidy and Barbara Colby. The two share several scenes together and it is poignant that both would die tragically within a decade of this filming, Cassidy in an apartment fire and Colby at the hands of assailants, yet to be found after over three decades.

Now, both demises are true-life MYSTERIES!


Along with Patrick McGoohan and Robert Culp, Jack Cassidy was an iconic Columbo villain. The very first "proper" episode of Columbo, following two standalone pilots, "Murder By The Book" is not far off classic status.

Jack Cassidy plays Ken Franklin, one half of a murder mystery writing partnership. His partner Jim is the talented one, whereas Ken has no talent other than the gift of the gab and a skill for promoting the books. As soon as Jim has decided he no longer requires Ken's marketing skills, Ken hatches a plot to kill Jim. Except it's not a new plot, it's actually the implementation in real life of a murder storyline originally intended for one of their books.

It doesn't take Columbo long to work out that Ken is the murderer, although unfortunately another murder has to take place (Ken romances and then kills a key witness) before Columbo has enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with "Murder By The Book", but it's not quite top-notch. I would just give "Publish Or Perish" the edge over this: both episodes feature Jack Cassidy and the world of publishing, but "Publish Or Perish" is a fraction more tense and unpredictable. But this is still a great episode.


Casting Jack Cassidy as Ken Frankin was sheer brilliance. Cassidy personified arrogance, confidence, charm and wit - all with a condescending, evil little smirk on his face. In my opinion, Jack Cassidy is by far the best murderer (having appeared three times) in the Columbo series. This particular (and first) performance, is my favorite Columbo episode ever - hands down. A fresh faced Steven Spielberg did amazing camera work (yes, there were a couple of camera shadows on the actors at times)capturing the nuances and banter at different and intriguing angles between Columbo and Franklin. Also, the panoramic and tight in shots at Big Bear Lake, CA (Franklin's cabin home) were very impressive.

If you have not yet seen this episode, then you owe it to yourself to do so - it's a true masterpiece.

Jack Cassidy was a very talented actor and singer. His charismatic personality was highly infectious. His death in 1976, at age 49 was very sad and indeed very tragic - he surely had his best years ahead of him. Rest in Peace Jack, you will live on for eternity through your great work.


This is the Columbo that got directed by Steven Spielberg at an early point in his career. It's nothing sensational but some small hint of great things to come for Spielberg can be seen in this movie. The movie is basically in the same style as most of Spierlberg's '70's movies and TV works. So that means that some characters tend to show some quirkiness's and no I'm not just talking about the Columbo character alone. The kind of character quirkiness which perhaps can be best seen in the 1975 Spielberg movie "Jaws". But other than some small hints of typical early Spielberg elements, you can't call this movie the work of- and fine example of a rising director star. Not that its bad, of course it isn't but as I said earlier, it also isn't anything too sensational.

This movie began really well and very promising but after it's fine opening, in which as always the murder occurred, the movie became sort of more slow and also dull to watch. Dull because it's mostly a Columbo movie by the book that doesn't have real memorable moments in it, not dull because it's a boring movie to watch.

The murder itself was quite ingenious and the concept of having a crime story writer murdering his writing partner showed some great and interesting potential. The story however didn't really explored all of its possibilities. At least that's the feeling this movie left me with.

The movie was still a good one to watch nevertheless thanks to the character of Jack Cassidy, who thinks he's smarter then Columbo, due to his mystery/crime writing experience and tries to give him all kinds of possible hints, leading away from himself. But of course Columbo knows better and he is his number one suspect from the first moment on but he as usual plays the game along.

The movie does have a good overall style and uses some fine camera position and editing. Funny to see that also most of this was all mostly consistent with Spielberg's later work, especially some of the camera-angles.

A fine and perfectly watchable Columbo movie but don't let the name of Spielberg attached to it rise your expectations for it too highly.

7/10


There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question.


"The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!"  Robert Altman

In 1955 Charles Laughton directed "The Night of the Hunter", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster.

Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in "Cape Fear", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade "Cape Fear", boat scene and all.

Now we have Robert Altman's "The Gingerbread Man", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted "The Night of the Hunter" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to "spread his wings and try a popcorn picture", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.

So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's "house ship". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.

Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.

Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the "thriller format" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. "Gingerbread Man" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.

The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's "Cape Fear" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.

7/10  In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: "Kansas City", "Gingerbread Man" and "Cookie's Fortune". Unlike "Gingerbread Man", both "Kansas City" and "Cookie's Fortune" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with.

"Kansas City" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, "The Wire"). That said, "Cookie's Fortune", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.

Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed "Images", an art house thriller, in 1972.

Worth one viewing.


Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: "Quintet", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in "Forbidden Games"; "HealtH", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; "Popeye", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; "O.C. & Stiggs", for its proposal of an anti-"adolescents flick"; "Beyond Therapy", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like "The Dumb Waiter" and "The Laundromat". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about "The Gingerbread Man", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike "The Gingerbread Man", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot "Red Sorghum", "Ju Dou" and "Farewell My Concubine". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his "foreigner's gaze", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa.


Any screen adaptation of a John Grisham story deserves a mainstream Hollywood approach, and Robert Altman is about the last director I would go to for a mainstream take on anything. But this southern-fried pot-boiler is pretty good. While it's not among Altman's best, it certainly isn't among the films he's made that leave you scratching your head and wondering what he was thinking.

Altman had tipped his hat to the mystery thriller with noir overtones before, in his 1973 film "The Long Goodbye." "The Gingerbread Man" is nowhere near as good as that film, but it holds up fairly well on its own. Kenneth Branagh is a cocky attorney who finds himself framed for murder after he gets involved with a client (Embeth Davidtz) who has enlisted his help in protecting her from her cuckoo father (Robert Duvall). The film is set in Savannah, Georgia during the approach of a tropical storm, which lends the film an oppressive atmosphere that I very much liked. The twists and turns toward the film's end become clunkier and clunkier, and Altman proves himself to be not all that adept at staging shootouts, but overall the film is not a bad addition to Altman's canon.

Also starring Robert Downey, Jr., Daryl Hannah, Tom Berenger and Famke Janssen.

Grade: B


A lawyer is drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when he becomes involved with a femme fatale in this adaptation of a Grisham novel. Altman creates a suspenseful, Gothic atmosphere but the script is weak. Sporting a Southern drawl, Branagh is convincing as the lawyer, and Davidtz is alluring as the object of his desire. Downey is likable as a private detective. Duvall has a small role, which does not allow him to do much with his weird character. Hannah and Berenger round out the impressive cast. After an interesting setup, the film bogs down and does not really deliver on its initial promise, but Altman is always worth a look.


I found myself at sixes and sevens while watching this one. Altman's touch with zooms in and out were there, and I expected those devices to comment on characters and situations. Unfortunately, as far as I could see, they sometimes were gratuitous, sometimes witty, often barren for failing to point out some ironic or other connection. In particular, two zoom-outs from the gilt dome in savannah merely perplexed. To be fair, though, a few zooms (outs and ins) to Branagh heightened his character's increasing bewilderment, a la Pudgy McCabe's or Philip Marlow's. On the whole, the zooms were, well, inconsistent, and sometimes even trite.

Other Almanesque devices, such as multiple panes of glass between camera and subject, succeeded in suggesting characters' sollipsism or narcissism or opaque states of knowledge. Car windshields, house windows, and other screens were used effectively and fairly consistently, I felt, harking back to THE PLAYER and even THE LONG GOODBYE. A few catchy jump-cuts, especially to a suggestive tv commercial, reminded me of such usage in SHORT CUTS, to sardonic effect.

But finally, the mismatch between Altman's very personal style and the sheer weight of the Grisham-genre momentum, failed to excite me. This director's 1970s masterpieces revised and deconstructed various classic genres, including the chandler detective film which this resembled in some ways; this time around, the director seemed to have too few arrows in his analytic quiver to strike any meaningful blow to the soft underbelly of this beastly genre. Was he muzzled in by mammonist producers, perhaps? Or am I missing something, due to my feeble knowledge of the genre he takes on here?

Nonetheless, the casting was excellent all around: Tom Berenger (for his terrifying ferality), Branagh for his (deflated) hubris, Robert Downey Jr's pheromonal haze, Robert Duvall's method of trash, and Davidtz's lurking femme-fatality were near perfect choices all. And except for a few slips out of Georgia into Chicago on the part of (brunette?) Daryl Hannah, accents were convincingly southern.

Suspense and mood were engrossing, even if the story didn't quite rivet viewers. The moodiness of a coastal pre-hurricane barometric plunge was exquisitely, painstakingly rendered--I felt like yelling at the usher to turn on the swamp cooler pronto.

Torn, in the end I judged it a 7.


The biggest surprise in this movie was the performance of Daryl Hannah. Rather than playing the stereotypical ditzy blonde roles that she usually does she plays a street-smart, intelligent, world-weary character. She doesn't have a huge role but she does a great job portraying Lois Harlan as a woman tired of, although used to, covering up for her boss' indiscretions.


I don't understand the low 5.7 rating on this film. It's a delight for people who like a strong suspense plot and dark atmospherics. The tone is reminiscent of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, down to the locale (Savannah). The acting is strong, and I was amazed at the verisimilitude of Kenneth Branagh's southern accent. Famke Jansen is great, Robert Duval is effective in a small part, and Embeth Davitz is the BOMB. Great full nude scene of her,too.

The plot is fairly standard but effectively executed.


Generally, it's difficult to rate these cut-&-paste films. Some of the segments can be quite good while others bring down the rating of the overall product. In this one, for instance, the all-girl scene in the Doctor's office was quite exciting...one of the best in this viewer's (limited) viewing history. Then there's Asia's segment... the lady is always entertaining. And the story that binds the whole together was an interesting concept. The swap scene that closes out the offering ain't bad either. Technically, the production values are fairly high. Recommended.


Ok, so it's an adult movie. But it really is very tastefully done. It's obvious that the producers spent a lot of time and money into making a classy sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised at just how good it was. Even the acting was fairly decent. The plot was more solid than most adult films I've seen. The camera work was above average. It's just a good flick!!


Although Cameron Grant was clearly hired to replace Andrew Blake over at Ultimate Pictures when the latter started his own company (Studio A), he practically outdid the "Master" right out of the gate when it came to setting up steamy sex scenes. So, while all the window dressing Blake had pioneered (starlets in fetish lingerie and sun glasses, coiffed and made up as if they're about to hit the catwalk) remained very much present and accounted for, Grant added his own personal spin to the carnal content. In doing so, he raised the heat to a level that had eluded Big A ever since his first  and IMHO best  film NIGHT TRIPS. Cam's maiden effort, ELEMENTS OF DESIRE, might still have been handicapped by an overly slavish adherence to the Blake aesthetic (with a surfeit of girl on girl gropes), but his subsequent DINNER PARTY already shows him at the top of his form in what must surely rank as his masterpiece.

The title spells out the premise as a group of well to do friends and acquaintances gather over dinner to swap sexy stories, with an extended orgy at the conclusion. Scrumptious Juli Ashton and Tammy Parks smear food stuff all over each other's flawless physiques in their kitchen sequence that is sure to delight those with a taste towards combining pleasures of the palette with those of the flesh. Busty Crystal Gold (here : "Catalina") was rarely more than a reliable second-stringer, adding spice to several Ona Zee bargain basement noirs, yet looks absolutely stunning here in a romantic four poster frolic with Fabio lookalike Vince Voyeur. Beautiful blondes Kylie Ireland and Yvonne, making out with Marc Davis (for the record, the latter two were an item at the time) under a waterfall, complete the eye candy section of the movie.

Time to get cooking ! Early Jenna Jameson ("Daisy" back then) foreshadows the greatness to come as she drains Frank Towers ("Mark Slade" on his subsequent shift to the gay side of the industry) of all vital juices, albeit with a little help from brunette Diva for effective contrast, the scene's stylish industrial setting providing an atmospheric backdrop to the full tilt sex taking place. Impossibly hunky construction worker Gerry Pike seeks to cool off on a sweltering summer day by hosing down, a prospect too tantalizing for prim 'n' proper business woman Asia Carrera (at her all time most achingly pretty) to pass up. Best of show must be the imaginative sequence that has nasty Norma Jeane and handsome Sean Michaels teasing the pants off each other  for starters !  while separated by a glass partition right until the predictably splashy conclusion.

With sex that proves either artsy or hot, and more often than not both, Grant has concocted a veritable smörgåsbord of fleshy wares to continue the film's gastronomic analogy the title implies. Couples may be the prime intended audience, but an alternation between naughty 'n' nice should rightfully include that "something for everything" recipe so many adult features are aiming for. Acting as his own DoP, the director shows great eye for detail, like the shot of Asia Carrera's pristine white shoes being spattered with mud, enriching his vision. This marks him out as a great filmmaker rather than a merely serviceable one, as was the case with Nick Steele who stepped up to take his place at Ultimate  effectively making him a replacement's replacement ?  when he packed up for greener pastures.


The Dinner Party could quite possibly be in my opinion the greatest adult cinema production of all time. It is produced in such an exquisite manner and the actors portray their roles excellently. The kitchen scene starring Yvonne and Juli Ashton is magnificent. The use of the butter and milk really makes the scene. Additionally, the doctor's office scene is well done. The campfire scene is filled with enjoyable action, though the choice of actors in this scene is questionable. Asia Carrera's performance in the junkyard scene is incredible, but who would expect anything less from her. The closing scene is somewhat over used in adult films, but is classic none the less. I would highly recommend this film to all fans of adult films and those casual viewers. Run out to your video store and pick it up today.


Cameron Grant is one of the best directors doing adult films. His only rival is Andrew Blake. Celeste is dynamite all thru the movie but the DR's office sequence with her & two other ladies is just incredible. Nearly as good is Asia Carrera's performance with the construction worker. I highly recommend this movie & gave it a 9. It's almost as good as Cameron Grant's ELEMENTS OF DESIRE which I gave a 10.


"Who Loves The Sun" works its way through some prickly subject matter with enough wit and grace to keep the story not only engaging, but often hilarious. It's been a while since I've found such a thoroughly touching, thoroughly enjoyable film.

The film is gorgeous, drawing the eye with beautiful scenery and tranquil landscapes. The peaceful imagery contrasts wonderfully with the tension between the very human, very flawed, and yet very likable characters. Due to the excellent cast all five of the major players are wonderfully interesting and dynamic.

I recommend "Who Loves The Sun." It's a really funny movie that takes a poignant look at the hurts that we can inflict on each other, and the amazingly difficult but equally rewarding process of forgiveness.


I had no idea what this movie was until I read about it in the L.A. Weekly. I generally agree with the reviews in the LA Weekly and decided to get a ticket for this film. the film stars molly parker (from my favorite television show Deadwood) and Lukas haas -- who I suspect we will be seeing more of in the very near future. The film is funny, heartwarming, features great acting, and beautiful photography. i don't know if the film has distribution, but I hope it does - or will - soon. this is destined to be a real indie gem. it even has music by my favorite band the silver jews! the only disappointment was that molly parker wasn't there at the screening. even without her there... this was hands down the best film i saw at the festival.


I caught this movie on the Sundance Channel on cable one late afternoon. You might say "Who Loves the Sun" is a perfect leisurely pastime of a story, why ever not. You get to hang out with the trio: Lukas Haas is Will (returning after abruptly leaving everyone years ago), Molly Parker is Maggie (we learn she's very much part of the family Bloom), and Adam Scott is Daniel (is he friend or foe or fiancé), by the scenic Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada, captured in graphic compositions juxtaposed in vivid summer colors against sunshine and shadows. And supporting the trio are two more family members in the revealing mix: Wendy Crewson is Mom Mary Bloom, and R.H. Thomson is Dad Arthur Bloom. Writer-director Matt Bissonnette has delivered an ingenious unfolding of story-line and its various tentacle links - worry not, Haas may have a 'listless' face, but humor will come as Parker and Scott enter the circle of friends reunited, wry smiles will break and knowing delights stir. Dialogs may be terse or even nil, yet we'd get the flavor of what's cooking, bemused or wondering.

Yes, "Who Loves the Sun" can very well be categorized as a sleeper gem. The chemistry between all five principals sure gels and 'combusts', giving an energetic ensemble performance. After all, it's all in the family, and the film sure doesn't take itself too seriously.

Looks like the official site is still available at "wholovesthesun.com" and there are information on the soundtrack by Mac McCaughan (Portastatic with guitar tunes and strings) where score excerpts are being played, and behind the scenes production notes, interview with writer-director-producer Bissonnette on how the movie and concept came about, the casting and more. Have always appreciate Molly Parker since her spare yet mesmerizing performance in 1996 Lynne Stopkewich's 'Kissed', and she's married to Bissonnette, who "wrote the Maggie part for Molly."


Although I live in Minnesota, I have been studying in France lately and came across this bizarre gem of a film.

This movie was amazing, to say the least. A creative and unique film, the different directors each lent something different to their interpretation of love in the City of Light. The first instinct is to attempt to fit each one of these little stories into an overall storyline, much as can be done with 2003's Love Actually. This attempt, however, renders the magic of each individual segment obsolete. When taken at face value, with each of the short segments taken as its own individual film, the love stories together tell a beautiful message.

The film is strikingly bizarre at times -- often to the point of confusion -- and each individual segment can be hard to follow. Still, to a watcher who pays close attention to each of the segments, the short plot lines become clear after a short time. The confusion is almost intriguing; it keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for what will come next. It leaves the viewer wondering "Did that really just happen?" yet also leaves them satisfied that it did, indeed, occur. It's the kind of movie where the viewer, upon leaving the theater, can't actually decide whether they loved it or they hated it. The initial reaction is to go and watch it again and again, just to see these individual lives blend together into a cinematic masterpiece.

The interesting decision to make the movie multilingual adds something to the spectrum of people who can relate. It adds to the reality of the film -- here, the American tourists speak English, the Parisians French, and so on. The number of people that the film encompasses leads to an understanding of the international language of love.

From sickness to the supernatural, the love of parents to the love of husbands, this film covers all the bases of romantic storytelling. In its beautiful and quirky way, each unique event somehow falls into place to tell a story: that of all types, sizes, nationalities, and shapes of love.


I was lucky enough to attend a screening in Stockholm for this elegantly expressed, enjoyable, and thought-provoking film. With romance as the heaviest weapon in its arsenal, Paris je t'aime boldly plunges into love in Paris, navigating the different forms in eighteen separate "quartiers" but without pouting Parisiennes and saccharine formulas. Its goldmine undoubtedly stems from frustration on the directors' parts  frustration over only having 5-10 minutes of screen time  thereby you are only presented with the best and most assured direction from each party.

Debating whether or not I should review all 18 segments, I reached the conclusion that it would be merely redundant and long-winded. Instead simply rest assured that each director graces the film with their eccentric styles and skills, and certainly you'll find your favourite. Although Gus Van Sant cannot resist the temptation to be introspective, his LES MARAIS is one of the better contributions, even sneaking in a well-placed Kurt Cobain reference. The Coen brothers recreate one of the more accessible segments in Paris, a scene with a muted but emotionally transparent Steve Buscemi, deadpan humour and clever camera angles that surely generated the most laughter in my theatre, and perhaps rightly so.

In this way, all story lines are exquisitely unique  filtered through the minds of different directors  but the one that deviates the most from the rest is Vincenzo Natali's QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE, a dark horror-Gothic love starring Elijah Wood as a lost tourist in the backstreets of Paris in the night who meets a vampiress. With a black-and-white format but blood-red colour contrast that seems to incongruously bleed off screen, it nearly becomes a pastiche of Sin City  a refreshing eerie and visual turn in an otherwise fairly grounded film.

Yet my single favourite segment was FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS by Tom Tykwer but I think I was conditioned to think so, given that I went in the theatre with him as my favourite and nudged my friend in the side saying "finally, that's my favourite director here". Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Tykwer delivers a lovely segment in which a blind boy picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - for once not annoying) that she breaks up with him, and he reflects on their relationship. As is Tywker's style, the story is dizzyingly fast-paced, kinetic and repetitive, featuring screaming and running (Lola Rennt) making it the most adrenaline-pumping segment in Paris je t'aime and possibly also the most touching once Tywker starts wielding his most powerful tool  music.

To fill the negative account, clearly not all directors manage as touching as Tywker, Van Sant, Cohens, Coixet and Dépardieu. Sylvain Chomet scrapes the bottom of the pile by carving out a truly disposable segment in which a little boy retells the story of how his parents met. They are two lonely mimes. This part is so in-your-face French and desperately quirky that it is insulting to international viewers. Suwa also directs a poor and fluffy segment with an unusually haggard-looking Juliette Binoche whom mourns the loss of her son. Nothing else happens. Finally, the wrap-up and interweaving of the 18 stories in the end feels somewhat rushed and half-hearted.

Yet Paris je t'aime truly spoils you with quality, for all the other stories are well-crafted with crisp acting and amusing writing. It is certainly one of the highlights of 2006 (not saying much, I suppose) and a very personal film in the sense that it is unavoidable to pick a favourite and a least favourite. Highly recommended both to mainstream of "pretentious" (heh) audiences.

8 out 10


Wasn't sure what to expect from this movie considering its amazing collection of stars and directors but in the end it didn't disappoint.

For me one of the highlights was the final episode with the American tourist speaking with a dreadful French accent (which made me feel better about mine) which was actually quite touching and a great way to wrap up the movie.

The story of the paramedic and the stabbing victim was also very moving and for pure comedy the Coen Brothers and Steve Buscemi take the award. The Tom Tykwer clip was also impressive although rather ambitious in its scope.

However, the Bob Hoskins segment was totally cringeworthy and the vampire story was completely farcical. The dialogue in Wes Craven's section also felt very forced and the Chinatown story was completely incomprehensible.

On the whole this film is worth watching for the good bits and has a strong finish. It's not too painful to sit through the bad sections - they only last 5 minutes anyway.

Ca vaut la peine!!!


It's not easy making a movie with 18 different stories in it. Although 18 different international directors took the challenge, not everyone of them is good, some of them even boring. But in his entity, "Paris, je t'aime" is breathtaking, showing that, as "Love Actually" put it, 'love is all around', especially in the city of love. Here's a resumé (I'll try to make at as spoiler-free as possible) of the 18 different stories.

MONTMARTRE - kind of a dull opening sequence, nothing really special about it. A man finds a parking spot, and sees a lot of odd couples walking by, wondering why he can't find a girl. And than, suddenly, a woman faints next to his car...

QUAIS DE SEINE - another dull sequence, about three teenage boys who are searching for some 'piece of ass', when suddenly a Muslim girl trips right in front of them, receiving help from one of the boys. Really basic, but with a sweet heart to it.

LES MARAIS - this was a huge disappointment! Although a love story between two boys with an artsy background could have been interesting by the great Van Sant. Eventually, everything that comes AFTER the monologue by Ulliel is good, everything before it is just annoying.

TUILERIES - an entertaining sequence by the Coen brothers. Buscemi - without even saying one word - is mesmerizing and the whole sequence is just hilarious. This one kept me hooked until the very end, and this one also gets you truly hooked to the movie.

LOIN DU 16IEME - a beautiful story too, even if the execution is poor, the heart is there. It's the story of an Hispanic woman who drops her child off, early in the morning, to take care of another suburban baby. Beautiful.

PORTE DE CHOISY - this segment has got to be the strangest and weirdest from the whole movie. Some kind of shampoo salesman arrives in a Chinatown-lookalike place in Paris. If I understood it correctly, the story is about inner beauty, but I think I'm wrong.

BASTILLE - a truly wonderful sequence. A man meets with his wife at a restaurant, to break up with her, so that he can run off with his mistress. But the wife has some devastating news. Pretty basic, but truly sad and beautiful! PLACE DES VICTOIRES - a sad sequence as well. Juliette Binoche plays a grieving mother. One night, she wakes up hearing her dead child. When she arrives at the location, a cowboy tells her she can give one last good-bye to her child. One of the best segments! TOUR EIFFEL - two mimes who fall in love could have been great, but, even though it has some nice cinematic tricks, the story isn't intriguing and not funny at all.

PARC MONCEAU - a truly original and great sequence, one of the best of the movie! A young girl and an older man discuss their future and her fear for a certain man... Cuaron does a great directing job, and the actors are amazing! QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES - an American actress (Gyllenhaal) falls in love with her drug dealer. a beautiful segment again, with a very sad ending PLACE DES FETES - a woman comes to a homeless man, he starts talking romantic to her... because she is the love of his life. Beautiful, sad, shocking, romantic,... Place des Fêtes will make everyone cry.

PIGALLE - a boring sequence between Ardant and Hoskins, who are looking for new thrills in their relationship... very unfunny and unromantic, Pigalle is a let-down.

QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE - bringing some diversity in the movie, QdlM is a relief. A young guy (Wood) finds a vampire killing a victim... The tourist and the vampire... fall in love! Dark, scary and oddly romantic, Madeleine is superb.

PERE-LACHAISE - another let-down segment. Directed by Wes Craven and with stars as Mortimer and Sewell, it could have been great, but Père-Lachaise is just ordinary, not original at all.

FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS - the rumors are TRUE, Twyker's short film is beautiful, stunning and well done. A blind man picks up the phone, and hears from his girlfriend (Portman - truly stunning) that she breaks up with him. He reflects on their relationship.

QUARTIER Latin - even though this segment has been co-directed by Depardieu and has such stars as Rowlands, Gazzara and Depardieu, this segment is a let-down too. Nothing happens, lack of chemistry between the actors.

14TH ARRONDISSEMENT - the last sequence is hilarious and sad at the same time. An American tells in her French class about her trip to Paris. Her French is truly terrible, but at the end of the segment, she realizes that Paris is so much more than meets the eye.

With Feist on the background, "Paris, je t'aime" ends in a sweet tone, not letting me down at all, even though some segments bored the hell out of me, the entity of the movie is great! A true cinematic experience for young and old. Paris, je t'aime vraiment!


I watched this movie a couple of days ago in a small independent cinema in Paris. It was my last evening in the French capital and the best good-bye I could have chosen. These twenty episodes made me relive the impressions I had collected in Paris in a heart-warming manner without drifting off into kitsch or sentimental schmaltz. Each episode is full of surprise, strong emotions and suggestive pictures and each short-film is directed according to the rules of a good short story. To me this kind of movie demands a lot more talent and qualities of a director and a story board writer than any epic two hours drama and all of them succeeded in their task excellently! The stories were chosen carefully with regard to their matching Arrondissement and express the respective flair perfectly. Each episode was seen from a different ankle, had a different topic, a different style and still the twenty stories result in a harmonic orchestra of films. The most outstanding advantage with the concept of an episode movie in my opinion is based in the fact that you can switch in between a large variety of feelings and moods without the danger of overload, just the other way round: the melange of sadness, melancholy, pure joy, despair, wrath, anxiety, curiosity or passion gives this movie a unique freshness and harmony. And not to forget the all over topic of love! Love between the characters, love between the characters and Paris and also the love of the directors and actors/actresses for this project. I don't want to go into the details of the episodes since there are so many, but I must highlight the range of world famous actors and actresses from all over the world and their approach to this project. Some played with their image, some broke it completely and some interpreted the stereotypes connected with their home country or the roles they had played before, so intertextuality was given all through the movie. All in all I can absolutely recommend this great collage and will be looking forward to its release on DVD.


The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, "Love in Paris", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish.


Rudyard Kipling once wrote that God gave to all people the ability to love the whole world, but given that a human heart is very small in size, every human has that special place that he loves more than any other. It seems to me that this may have been the motto of some of the most eminent directors of today when they set out to profess the eternal love for that special place and depict situations in the lives of its denizens and visitors. The result is a wonderful collection of short films, Paris je t'aime, in which our guides, Van Sant, Coixet, Cuaron, Payne and others take us on a breathtaking stroll through Parisian arrondissements, human feelings, yearnings and expectations.

Always some other quarter, always some utterly moving story about ordinary people in search for love, be it in a parking lot, art studio, tube station. And Paris je t'aime is about vast array of loves- love for one's partner, child, parent, for those who meant the world to us but are no longer around, love that needs rekindling, serendipitous love for that stranger as your eyes meet, or love that just is not meant to be...today, but tomorrow- who knows?

Nevertheless, this film is not solely about love, but life itself, joy, pain, loneliness, confusion, everyday ups and downs. And its most important quality is the fact that it is not soppy at all, but rather warm and full of hope.

I give this film a 9 because the final section of it suggests how some of the stories might further develop, but not all of them and that is the thing that I find missing, and by "further development" I do not mean some specific reference to the characters' future. As far as everything else is concerned I can only say- captivating. Makes you want to leave everything behind you, flee to Paris and live those little romances yourself.


Just saw this tonight at a seminar on digital projection (shot on 35mm, and first feature film fully scanned in 6k mastered in 4k, and projected with 2k projector at ETC/USC theater in Hwd)..so much for tech stuff. 18 directors (including Alexander Payne, Wes Cravens, Joel and Ethan Coen, Gus Van Sant, Walter Salles and Gerard Depardieu, among several good French/ international directors) were each given 5 minutes to make a love story. They come in all shapes and forms, with known actors(Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi ..totally hilarious..., Maggie Glyllenhall, Nick Nolte, Geena Rowlands ..soo good..and she actually wrote the piece she was in, Msr Depardieu and many good international actors as well. The stories vary from all out romance to quirky comedy to Alex Payne's touching study of a woman discovering herself to Van Sant and one of those things that happens anywhere..maybe? Nothing really off putting by having French spoken in most sequences (with English subtitles) and a small amount of actual English spoken, though that will probably relegate it to art houses (a la Diva.) Also only one piece that might be considered "experimental" but colorful and funny as well, the rest simple studies of sometimes complex relationships. All easy to follow (unless the "experimental" one irritates your desire for a formulaic story. Several brought up some emotions for me...I admit I am affected by love in cinema...when it is presented in something other than sentimentality. I even laughed at a mime piece, like no other I have seen (thank you for that!) The film hit its peak, for me, somewhere around a little more than half way through, then the last two sequences picked up again. Some beautiful shots of Paris at night, lush romantic kind of music, usually used to good effect, not just schmaltz for "emotions" in sound, generally good cinematography, though some shots seemed soft focus when it couldn't have meant to have been (main character in shot/scene). Pacing of each film was good, and overall structure, though a bit long (they left out two of what was to be 20 films, but said all would be on the DVD) seemed to vary between tones of the films to keep a good balance. Not sure when it comes out, but a good study of how to make a 5 min film work..and sometimes, what doesn't work (if it covers too much time, emotionally, for a short film.) Should be in region one when released, but they didn't know when.


Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.

My favorite segments:

14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.

Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.

Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.

Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the "tenancier de bar" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.

Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!

Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.

Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.

I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!

Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.

84/100 (***)


Greetings again from the darkness. 18 directors of 18 seemingly unrelated vignettes about love in the city of lights. A very unusual format that takes a couple of segments to adjust to as a viewer. We are so accustomed to character development over a 2 hour movie, it is a bit disarming for that to occur in an 8 minute segment.

The idea is 18 love/relationship stories in 18 different neighborhoods of this magnificent city. Of course, some stand up better than others and some go for comedy, while others focus on dramatic emotion. Some very known directors are involved, including: The Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Gus Van Sant and Gurinda Chadha. Many familiar faces make appearances as well: Steve Buscemi, Barbet Schroeder, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ben Gazzara, Gena Rowlands, Gerard Depardieu, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Bob Hoskins.

One of the best segments involves a mime, and then another mime and the nerdy, yet happy young son of the two mimes. Also playing key roles are a red trench coat, cancer, divorce, sexual fantasy, the death of a child and many other topics. Don't miss Alexander Payne (director of "Sideways") as Oscar Wilde.

The diversity of the segments make this interesting to watch, but as a film, it cannot be termed great. Still it is very watchable and a nice change of pace for the frequent movie goer.