In 1987, John Hughes wrote and directed 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles', which was a hilarious and poignant comedy  the best thing he's ever done. Ten years on he's reduced to again recycling the plot of 'Home Alone' in this second sequel, which is not connected to the other films but is equally uninspired and sadistic. The four crooks  that's right, four! And one of them is a girl! Congratulations, Hughes, for introducing this revolutionary change to the series!  are electrocuted with metal chairs, brained with barbells and blinded with paint, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa ha, while the new kid is even less charming than Culkin. You'd think that the departure of almost all the key players from the first two films would stop Hughes from fossilising the same old routines, but the only surprise is that not even he turned up for 'Home Alone 4'.


I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.

This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.

Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself!

The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!


This is the worst ripoff of Home Alone movies that I have EVER seen! Watch part 1 and two, but don't let anyone say that this is BETTER than the first two! I mean, really, you don't make a movie, then make a sequel with the same characters and actors, and then make another sequel with DIFFERENT characters and actors! I mean, it would have been OK if this wan't a "Home Alone" movie, but they DID make it a Home Alone movie. Culkin is too old now, so you're suppose to STOP making sequels! Goodness, this movie makes me SICK! Buy part 1 and 2.


I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.

The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.

But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?


Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.

First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.

The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.

The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.

I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this!

So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.

0/5 stars


Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.


I loved the first two movies, but this movie was just a waste of time and money (for me and the studio). I'm still wondering why they made this horrible movie. The thing with the plastic gun and with the toy car, that can go into another house are ridiculous. Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern in the first two movies were so funny, but the terrorists in this one are so stupid and not funny. Believe me this movie is just a waste of time.


I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!!


Whoever thought that ANOTHER Home Alone film would be a good idea should have their head examined... Same plot, different kid, more villains (which leads to MORE endless stupidity in the traps). The other two films were bad enough, and this is where it hits rock bottom. People may as well watch the other films for plot, as it's all identical.


I don't know what you guys are inhaling, but please stop. This movie was complete trash.

Macaulay Culkin as Kevin McCallister was lovable, cute, sweet, loving, and extremely fun to watch. He had that innocence but at the same time, he was strong as well.

This new kid, Alex? Annoying as all hell! Just a blatant ripoff at trying to match Culkin's charm and grace, failing miserably at that.

The villains, complete crap. Harry and Marv, they were such an entertaining on screen team. They were comedic, they were humorous, and just made you really want to root for Culkin even more, which is what a good villain is suppose to do. These guys Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, absolutely PERFECT for those roles. On the other hand, in 3, we have 4 new idiots that just bicker and again, try to capitalize on the charisma and duo charm of the first villains. Not saying they were horrible, but they were not memorable or even really that entertaining. More on the corny side actually.

Then we got the actual movies. Part 1 and 2, classics. Memorable. Perfect to watch around Christmas and brings a wonderful Christmas feeling and brings out so many emotions. It makes you fall in love with the story, and care about the characters. Simply, memorable and close to being masterpieces. Part 3? Masterpiece of crap. Enough said.

All and all, I don't know why people like this. I think people really don't know what a good movie is anymore. Its a crappy sequel rip-off with more unrealistic traps and a stupid new main character kid that I wish the robbers would of at least beat the crap out of.

Run, run away from this garbage. And lets not even start with Part 4!


If you want to laugh like crazy, rent Cage. Cage is about two war heroes, Billy and Scott who are best friends. When Billy is shot in Vietnam, he is unable to fend for himself, so Scott takes him in.

I have never seen a movie with more gay references to the two main characters. Billy and Scott love to "wrestle" and Scott tells Billy that he is "still sore from last night," among other things.

Wonderful catch phrases like "Shut the sh!t up" and "Ping Pang Pong, cut the sh!t" will keep you laughing for hours. The native American guys that are supposed to be playing Mexican gang members are also top notch. As they say, it's "party time right now. Ba-ba-ba-ba ba-ba." I could go on forever, but just watch this movie and laugh your a$$ off. It was so funny I went out and bought the DVD for $5.99


Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.

The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.

Not recommended.

xxx


I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.


Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.

In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...

"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10


There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.

The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.


Tainted look at kibbutz life

This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of wellevil.

The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy  his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote  "Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes."

There is one other "good" character in this movie  a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for "violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse.

The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son.

That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head  that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in." I feel sorry for the guy who made this film  obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.


I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.

This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.

The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.

But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.

If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.

Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.


Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.


Yes AWA wrestling how can anyone forget about this unreal show. First they had a very short interviewer named Marty O'Neil who made "Rock n Roll" Buck Zumhofe look like a nose tackle. Then it was Gene Okerland who when he got "mad as the wrestler" would say either "Were out of time" or "Well be right back" acting like he was mad but actually sounding forced. After he went to the WWF Ken Resneck took over even though his mustache looked like week old soup got stuck to it was a very fine interviewer who "Georgeous" Jimmy Garvin called mouse face which made me fall off my chair laughing. After he jumped ship then Larry Nelson came on board which he was so bad that Phyllis George would of been an improvement! Then there's Doug McLeod the best wrestling announcer ever who made every match exciting with his description of blows! Then he was offered more pay by the Minnesota North Stars hockey team. At ringside who can forget Roger Kent who's mispronouncing of words and sentences were historic Like when a wrestler was big "Hes a big-on!" punched or kicked in the guts "right in the gussets"or when kicked "He punted him" or "the "piledriver should be banned" after Nick Bockwinkle used it on a helpless opponent.(Right Roger like you care!) After he left to greener money(WWF) they had Rod Trongard who's announcing style was great but different. Like when a wrestler scraped the sole of his boot across another guys forehead he'd say"Right across the front-e-lobe" or when a wrestler is in trouble "Hes in a bad bad way". He also would say AWA the baddest,toughest,meanest, most scientific wrestlers are here right in the AWA!(No extra money Verne Gagne!) After he left(WWF) Larry(Wheres Phyllis?!) Nelson took over and I would talk to someone else or totally ignore him.(WWE wisely didn't take him!) Also Greg Gagne had the ugliest wrestling boots I ever saw a yellow color of something I don't want to say.Also when hes looking for the tag he looks like he wants to get it over with so that he can run to the nearest restroom! Jumpin Jim Brunzell was such a great dropkick artist that you wonder why Greg was ever his partner. Jerry Blackwell(RIP)was also a superstar wrestler but you wonder why Verne had himself win against him.(Puhleeeeze!) Then when Vince McMahon would hire Gagnes jobbers, he would make most of them wrestle squash matches. I like to see the Gagne family say wrestlings real now!


Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.

But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect.

This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.


Zentropa is the most original movie I've seen in years. If you like unique thrillers that are influenced by film noir, then this is just the right cure for all of those Hollywood summer blockbusters clogging the theaters these days. Von Trier's follow-ups like Breaking the Waves have gotten more acclaim, but this is really his best work. It is flashy without being distracting and offers the perfect combination of suspense and dark humor. It's too bad he decided handheld cameras were the wave of the future. It's hard to say who talked him away from the style he exhibits here, but it's everyone's loss that he went into his heavily theoretical dogma direction instead.


Lars Von Trier is never backward in trying out new techniques. Some of them are very original while others are best forgotten.

He depicts postwar Germany as a nightmarish train journey. With so many cities lying in ruins, Leo Kessler a young American of German descent feels obliged to help in their restoration. It is not a simple task as he quickly finds out.

His uncle finds him a job as a night conductor on the Zentropa Railway Line. His job is to attend to the needs of the passengers. When the shoes are polished a chalk mark is made on the soles. A terrible argument ensues when a passenger's shoes are not chalked despite the fact they have been polished. There are many allusions to the German fanaticism of adherence to such stupid details.

The railway journey is like an allegory representing man's procession through life with all its trials and tribulations. In one sequence Leo dashes through the back carriages to discover them filled with half-starved bodies appearing to have just escaped from Auschwitz . These images, horrible as they are, are fleeting as in a dream, each with its own terrible impact yet unconnected.

At a station called Urmitz Leo jumps from the train with a parceled bomb. In view of many by-standers he connects the bomb to the underside of a carriage. He returns to his cabin and makes a connection to a time clock. Later he jumps from the train (at high speed) and lies in the cool grass on a river bank. Looking at the stars above he decides that his job is to build and not destroy. Subsequently as he sees the train approaching a giant bridge he runs at breakneck speed to board the train and stop the clock. If you care to analyse the situation it is a completely impossible task. Quite ridiculous in fact. It could only happen in a dream.

It's strange how one remembers little details such as a row of cups hanging on hooks and rattling away with the swaying of the train.

Despite the fact that this film is widely acclaimed, I prefer Lars Von Trier's later films (Breaking the Waves and The Idiots). The bomb scene described above really put me off. Perhaps I'm a realist.


*Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*

I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.

One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.

The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, "Werewolf." I have never seen anything like that in a film.

The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.

The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.

The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do!


That was the first thing that sprang to mind as I watched the closing credits to Europa make there was across the screen, never in my entire life have I seen a film of such technical genius, the visuals of Europa are so impressive that any film I watch in it's wake will only pale in comparison, forget your Michael Bay, Ridley Scott slick Hollywood cinematography, Europa has more ethereal beauty than anything those two could conjure up in a million years. Now I'd be the first to hail Lars von Trier a genius just off the back of his films Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark, but this is stupid, the fact that Europa has gone un-noticed by film experts for so long is a crime against cinema, whilst overrated rubbish like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life is Beautiful clean up at the academy awards (but what do the know) Europa has been hidden away, absent form video stores and (until recently) any British TV channels.

The visuals in Europa are not MTV gloss; it's not a case of style over substance, its more a case of substance dictating style. Much like his first film The Element of Crime, von Trier uses the perspective of the main character to draw us into his world, and much like Element, the film begins with the main character (or in the case of Europa, we the audience) being hypnotized. As we move down the tracks, the voice of the Narrator (Max von Sydow) counts us down into a deep sleep, until we awake in Europa. This allows von Trier and his three cinematographers to pay with the conventions of time and imagery, there are many scenes in Europa when a character in the background, who is in black and white, will interact with a person in the foreground who will be colour, von Trier is trying to show us how much precedence the coloured item or person has over the plot, for instance, it's no surprise that the first shot of Leopold Kessler (Jean-marc Barr) is in colour, since he is the only character who's actions have superiority over the film.

The performances are good, they may not be on par with performances in later von Trier films, but that's just because the images are sometimes so distracting that you don't really pick up on them the first time round. But I would like to point out the fantastic performance of Jean-Marc Barr in the lead role, whose blind idealism is slowly warn down by the two opposing sides, until he erupts in the films final act. Again, muck like The Element of Crime, the film ends with our hero unable to wake up from his nightmare state, left in this terrible place, with only the continuing narration of von Sydow to seal his fate. Europa is a tremendous film, and I cant help thinking what a shame that von Trier has abandoned this way of filming, since he was clearly one of the most talented visual directors working at that time, Europa, much like the rest of his cinematic cannon is filled with a wealth of iconic scenes. His dedication to composition and mise-en-scene is unrivalled, not to mention his use of sound and production design. But since his no-frills melodramas turned out to be Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark then who can argue, but it does seems like a waste of an imaginative talent. 10/10


I had started to lose my faith in films of recent being inundated with the typical Genre Hollywood film. Story lines fail, and camera work is merely copied from the last film of similiar taste. But, then I saw Zentropa (Europa) and my faith was renewed. Not only is the metaphorical storyline enthralling but the use of color and black and white is visually stimulating. The narrator (Max Von Sydow) takes you through a spellbounding journey every step of the way and engrosses you into Europa 1945. We have all seen death put on screen in a hundred thousand ways but the beauty of this film is how it takes you through every slow-moving moment that leads you to death. Unlike many films it doesn't cut after one second of showing (for example) a knife but forces you to watch the devastating yet sensuous beauty of a man's final moments. I think we can all take something different away from what this movie is trying to say but it is definitely worth taking the time to find out what it all really means. I would love to talk more in depth about the film for any one who wishes to send me an email. Enjoy it!


Critics need to review what they class as a quality movie. I think the critics have seen too many actions films and have succumbed to the Matrix style of films. Europa is a breath of fresh air, a film with so many layers that one viewing is not enough to understand or appreciate this outstanding film. Lars von Trier shows that old styles of filming can produce marvellous cinema and build drama and tension. The back projection effect he uses during the film arouses and enhances the characters, and the focus of the conversation they are having. Other effects he uses such as the colour and black and white in one scene much like Hitchcock and the girl with the red coat grabs attention and enhances the drama and meaning of the scene. The commentary is superb and has a hypnotic effect, again maintaining the focus on the central characters in the scene and there actions.

I could talk about the effects more but I think you all would agree they push this film into a category of its own, and really heighten the drama of the film. A film to buy if you don't own already and one to see if you have not.

10/10 Don't miss this artistic noir film from one of the great film directors.


It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.


The best way for me to describe Europa, which is high on the list of my favourite films, is the exclamation that came from a companion after the film ended: "I didn't know films could be made like that". Entirely original in it's visual style, it is one of the best examples of what cinema can be. It's as far away from the "master and coverage" style of shooting as one can get; perfectly integrating many layers of image, sound, effects, props, dialogue, voice over, performance, editing, lighting, etc... all equal, none predominant. Despite Hollywood's "dialogue" myopia, cinema is not about dialogue, nor is it about beautiful lighting, action or music. It works best when all the elements are on an equal footing, where ONLY the BLENDING of those elements, in the order or combination in which they are presented, will communicate the idea. Reduce or eliminate the contribution of one element, and the film has no meaning. "Europa" is what cinema should strive to be.


Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.

This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.

Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.

The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.

This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.

The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.


Lars von Trier's Europa is a worthy echo of The Third Man, about an American coming to post-World War II Europe and finds himself entangled in a dangerous mystery.

Jean-Marc Barr plays Leopold Kessler, a German-American who refused to join the US Army during the war, arrives in Frankfurt as soon as the war is over to work with his uncle as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa Railway. What he doesn't know is the war is still secretly going on with an underground terrorist group called the Werewolves who target American allies. Leopold is strongly against taking any sides, but is drawn in and seduced by Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the femme fatale daughter of the owner of the railway company. Her father was a Nazi sympathizer, but is pardoned by the American Colonel Harris (Eddie Considine) because he can help get the German transportation system up and running again. The colonel soon enlists, or forces, Leopold to be a spy (without giving him a choice or chance to think about it) to see if the Werewolves might carry out attacks on the trains.

Soon, Leopold is stuck in an adventure by being involved with both sides of the conflict in a mysterious and film noir-ish way, where everyone and everything is not what it seems. Its amazing to watch the naive Leopold deal with everything (his lover, the terrorists, the colonel, annoying passengers, his disgruntled uncle, even the railway company's officials who come to examine his work ethic) before he finally boils over and humorously and violently takes control. The film is endlessly unpredictable.

The film stylishly shot, it always takes place at night during the winter with lots of falling snow. Its shot in black and white with shots of color randomly appearing throughout. Also, background screens displaying images that counter act with the images up front. Add Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration, and Europa becomes a dreamlike place that's out of this world.

This is now a personal favorite film of mine.


Man oh man... I've been foolishly procrastinating (not the right term, there's a long list!) to watch this film and finally had the chance to do so. And "news" are: Marvellous labyrinthine spectacle!

For any Von Trier's "follower": both Rigets, Element of Crime, Dogville, Dancer in The Dark, The Five Obstructions, etc... Europa is probably the differential for its greatness in visual terms. Everything is beautifully somber and claustrophobic! You really get the feeling of being inside this "imaginary" nightmarish time warp. Taking from the masters of surreal cinema like Bunuel, Bergman, till noir films of the 40's with acidic drops of avant-guard Von Trier leads the art-film scene as the "well intended totalitarian" movie maker of nowadays. His authoritarian way of dealing with very intricate issues, without being irrational, hits the nerve of the viewer with the intent to cure some of the deepest wounds we feed in our hypocritical world.

As Utopian as it seems, I do believe people like Von Trier could help society in many ways in a broader aspect. The day films and filmmakers that carry this sort of power are no longer necessary, as a tool for reflection, perhaps it could be the start of a new era: "The age of emotional control over our fears". This is what he offers to us constantly through his work over and over.

Bravo!


Piece of subtle art. Maybe a masterpiece. Doubtlessly a special story about the ambiguity of existence. Tale in Kafka style about impossibility of victory or surviving in a perpetual strange world. The life is, in this film, only exercise of adaptation. Lesson about limits and original sin, about the frailty of innocence and error of his ways.

Leopold Kessle is another Joseph K. Images of Trial and same ambiguous woman. And Europa is symbol of basic crisis who has many aspects like chimeric wars or unavailing search of truth/essence/golden age.

Methaphor or parable, the movie is history of disappointed's evolution. War, peace, business or lie are only details of gelatin-time. Hypocrisy is a mask. Love- a convention. The sacrifice- only method to hope understanding a painful reality.


As much as the movie was good, i have nothing more to say about it than what was said already. all i wanted is to point the fact that the movie isnt from Sweden but from Denemark. Maybe I wrong and in that case i'll be happy to know my mistakes so take the and notify me.


I haven't seen this movie in about 5 years, but it still haunts me.

When asked about my favorite films, this is the one that I seem to always mention first. There are certain films (works of art like this film, "Dark City", and "Breaking the Waves") that seem to touch a place within you, a place so protected and hidden and yet so sensitive, that they make a lifelong impression on the viewer, not unlike a life-changing event, such as the ending of a serious relationship or the death of a friend... This film "shook" me when I first saw it. It left me with an emotional hangover that lasted for several days.


EUROPA (ZENTROPA) is a masterpiece that gives the viewer the excitement that must have come with the birth of the narrative film nearly a century ago. This film is truly unique, and a work of genius. The camerawork and the editing are brilliant, and combined with the narrative tropes of alienation used in the film, creates an eerie and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The participation of Barbara Suwkowa and Eddie Constantine in the cast are two guilty pleasures that should be seen and enjoyed. Max Von Sydow provides his great voice as the narrator.

A one of a kind movie! Four stars (highest rating).


Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect.


This is the definite Lars von Trier Movie, my favorite, I rank it higher than "Breaking the waves" or the latest "Dancer in the Dark"... I simply love the beauty of the picture...the framing is so original; acting is wonderful, A MUST SEE.


This is the movie for those who believe cinema is the seventh art, not an entertainment business. Lars von Trier creates a noir atmosphere of post-war Germany utterly captivating. You get absorbed into the dream and you're let go only at the end credits. The plot necessarily comes second, but it still is a thrilling story with tough issues being raised. Just wonderful.


`Europa' (or, as it is also known, `Zentropa') is one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The blend of grayscale and colour photography is near seamless... a true feast for the eyes. The picture was a contender for a 1991's Golden Palm in Canners. The award went to Barton Fink (by Coen brothers); a film stylistically very similar to Zentropa. Here's an exercise in class: rent both films and be a judge for yourself.


Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever.


The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!


Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.


This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.


when i read other comment,i decided to watch this movie...

First, cast specially Michael Madsen and Tamer Karadagli; good enough...

Film,very intelligence and interesting because ,cast have a lot of international specially European actor and actress like from Turkey and Russsia...

Second,Story is basic and you can guess but if you interesting action good play you'll like in my opinion...

Third,Final chapter is not special or interesting,it's regular like other action movies...

Finally,i recommend to watch this movie...And i hope You'll love it enjoy :D


I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...


IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known.


Scott Bartlett's 'OffOn' is nine minutes of pure craziness. It is a full-frontal assault of psychedelic, pulsating, epilepsy-inducing flashing lights and colours, and the first true merging of film and video in avante-garde cinema. There's no story to speak of, but Bartlett uses images of nature  particularly the human face and form  to provoke a sequence of emotional reactions, integrating these biological phenomena into the highly-industrial form of modern technology. In a sense, the film represents the merging of humanity into his tools, his machinery, his technology. This theme connects loosely with the subplot of HAL9000 in Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),' and, indeed, Bartlett's opening sequence of images  flashing colours before a close-up human eye  recalls Dave Bowman's journey through the Stargate. The visuals are richly-coloured, a confronting blend of sharp, vivid photography and increasingly-grainy video, as though we're sitting too close to a television screen {as a matter of fact, the end product was recorded from a TV monitor}.

There appears to be some confusion about the film's release date. IMDb lists the film as a 1972 release, but both the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Foundation give 1968 as the correct year. Perhaps this disparity reflects the time between the film's completion and its first public screening. Either way, the visuals are distinctly ahead of their time, occasionally reminiscent of a 1980s music video, and some brisk techno music wouldn't have gone amiss, either! 'OffOn' captures grainy, fragmented images, presenting life from the warped perspective of a computer processing too much information. I had a thought  and please don't laugh at this free-thinking interpretation  that an extraterrestrial civilisation capturing Earth's television signals might very well receive such a disjointed, alien documentation of human life, a bizarre montage of only vaguely-familiar imagery that couldn't possibly make any coherent sense. Perhaps this is where Mankind, with all his technology, is eventually heading, towards an irreversible merging of film and video, of purity and artificiality.


A Christmas Together actually came before my time, but I've been raised on John Denver and the songs from this special were always my family's Christmas music. For years we had a crackling cassette made from a record that meant it was Christmas. A few years ago, I was finally able to track down a video of it on Ebay, so after listening to all the music for some 21 years, I got to see John and the Muppets in action for myself. If you ever get the chance, it's a lot of fun--great music, heart-warming and cheesy. It's also interesting to see the 70's versions of the Muppets and compare them to their newer versions today. I believe Denver actually took some heat for doing a show like this--I guess normally performers don't compromise their images by doing sing-a-longs with the Muppets, but I'm glad he did. Even if you can't track down the video, the soundtrack is worth it too. It has some Muppified traditional favorites, but also some original Denver tunes as well.


For me too, this Christmas special is one that I remember very fondly. In 1989, I snatched up the 2 CDs I found of the soundtrack recording, giving one to my sister and keeping the other for myself. It's part of my family's Christmas tradition now, and I would love to be able to actually see the show again rather than just remember it as I listen.

It has been noted elsewhere that John Denver made a number of appearances on the Muppet Show, and they did more than one special together. The good rapport between Denver and his fuzzy companions comes through clearly here, in a charming and fun show that is good for all ages.


this was a favorite Christmas Special that I wish that they would release on vhs or dvd , since my 33 RPM got lost,and any cassettes I made are also long gone.

I am not even a big John Denver fan but was very impressed with the music , which was mostly traditional favorites with a muppet spin ( esp Little St. Nick ! ) It also contained a few little known songs ( original ? ).

Even though it was done at the end of the '70's this show had a timeless feel to it. Hoping to find a copy soon !!!


I was reviewing some old VHS tapes I have and came across The TV show John Denver & The Muppets A Christmas Together.This made me go to my computer and look it up to see if I could find a DVD version of this show to buy. I was disappointed not to be able to find it yet on DVD. The show aired in 1979 and was a delightful show. I have the record and the CD but I would love to buy a DVD version of this show. The tape is old and picture quality is pretty good but fading, the sound is not as good as the CD. There is also a few other songs not put on the CD. As a Fan of John Denver and of the Muppets, a DVD of this show would really be a good seller. If you don't have the CD it is a wonderful Chritmas collection of songs taken from that show. The album is also good if you can find it and still have a record player to play it on.


yes i have a copy of it on VHS uncut in great condition that i transfered to DVD and if anyone one wants to bring back the memories of a Christmas classic please emil me at dmd2222@verizon.net.i searched everywhere and i found nothing on this and i thought that i cant be the only one on this planet that has this classic on tape there has to be other people and if they do i fit in with them being that very very few that has this classic so i consider myself lucky and i have all of the muppets Christmas except one that john denver did with the muppets again i thinks its called a smokey mountain holiday im not to sure but its close.


I am a huge John Denver fan. I have a large collection of his music on vinyl. I saw this Christmas special when it was originally on TV and loved it. I have the original vinyl album and CD. I have the original CD and later release. The later release is missing several songs though. I see that it has been released this year with all original songs. To my surprise I found the original CD for sale at $75.00. WOW - to think that a Christmas Cd would be worth that much. To me no amount is worth selling this treasure. It is my favorite Christmas CD. I have never been able to find it on VHS or DVD. I would love to have either version. If anyone has one available please let me know. Thanks


My first child was born the year this program came out, and I played the record album for the boys every Christmas thereafter. When the CD came out, I bought about ten copies and still give them to friends and relatives as they start families...it invariably becomes their favorite Christmas album. I recently found several DVD's (made on DVD-R from video tapes, probably) for sale on eBay. The one I bought was an excellent copy, and it was so great to see the show again after more than 25 years. There are some songs on the show that were not on the album, and some of the songs on the album were studio versions of the same songs on the show. But both the CD and DVD will stay in our library as the best Christmas entertainment ever.


This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment.

Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.

So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)

The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains.


Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it.


Yeah, the poster is quite a horrible piece of work.

I thought the movie was OK...nothing really outstanding...I just was hoping that he would be a hardcore druggie and totally trash his life.

Ahh, but that can't happen to rich kids now can it? Not to the son of a wealthy businessman who holds big ballroom parties and has a nice manicured lawn on the front of the mini mansion.

No...the kid is too good to have his life totally trashed. After all, who will drive the brand new SUV and who will go to law school?

Ah, the poor little rich kids...in their quaint pretty house, with their ivy league schools, ultra clean homes and socialite parties...what will the world do without them?

I hope they all get addicted to drugs, pass-away their life and end up in jail...so maybe we can see movies that don't all revolve around the poor little rich boys and girls of the surreal world.


To be honest, I had no idea what this movie was about when I started it. That's how I watch movies whenever possible. No preconception. I thought this was going to be a movie about stoners in the woods or something. I was wrong, kinda.

Loaded was kind of boring at first but once it started to get going it really hooked me. I know the feeling of being sucked into something dangerous where you feel helpless but to do things that you do not want to do.

Another user commented on how this movie was silly and implausible but I beg to differ. These kinds of things DO happen. I'm sorry but not everyone lives in a dream world where nothing bad can happen and crazy situations are "implausible". Really sorry but the reality of the WORLD is that they DO happen. The creator of this movie as well as the actors did a great job of portraying how things can just go bad and how people can make really bad choices. Sometimes things turn out good, sometimes they turn out bad and such is life.

I highly recommend this movie.


This was one of the best movies I have seen. The movie relates to real life and how drugs CAN play a major part. Although this movie appears to be produced from a low budget, I found it to be exhilarating to watch.

Some may not like the story and say the script is lacking direction. However, when a person gets as deep into drugs as these characters, there is no direction is life. I feel this movie is an accurate representation of what might happen to a person if they are faced with extreme temptations.

Most of the cast are newcomers to the industry. However, they all pulled it off very well. Everyone seemed to do their job well and get into character appropriately.

I think this movie might be a good tool to use when dealing with a person or loved one that is involved in drugs and appears to be spiraling out of control. This movie might just scare them enough to change their ways.


This Academy Award winning short film can rank among the greatest of the genre. Told completely without dialogue, it is a visual treat about a young boy who buys a gold fish, lovingly places him in a bowl then goes off to school, leaving the gold fish unprotected and a window carelessly open. After a while, a neighboring orange tabby comes poking around, comes in through the window and heads slowly for the bowl. The fish apparently knows something is going on and becomes very excited. As the cat comes very near to the bowl, the fish jumps out. The cat catches the fish, drops him back in the bowl and exits through the window he came in just as the boy, not knowing what has happened, gets back. This was amazingly filmed with real animals; how Cousteau got these animals to behave in this manner is remarkable. I only wish this film were available now for people to see; I only saw it once, in 1959 when it was originally released, but it has remained unforgettable.


I remember seeing this in a the Salem movie theater (where I used to attend "Kiddie Matinée"s almost every Saturday) in Dayton, Ohio when I was a young boy and have never forgotten it. It simply amazed me and my friends. I do wish there were some way I could see it again! I have tried to find some compilation of shorts or something like that to no avail. I only recently discovered that it was a Cousteau film and that blew my mind even more. How the heck he accomplished this is beyond my understanding. The fish is ACTUALLY IN THE CAT'S MOUTH at one point, if I remember correctly! If anyone could help me find a way to see it again I would be extremely grateful!


I saW this film while at Birmingham Southern College in 1975, when it was shown in combination with the Red Balloon. Both films are similar in their dream-like quality. The bulk of the film entails a fish swimming happily in his bowl while his new owner, a little boy, is away at school. A cat enters the room where the fish and his bowl are, and begins to warily stalk his "prey." The boy begins his walk home from school, and the viewer wonders whether he will arrive in time to save his fish friend. The fish becomes agitated by the cat's presence, and finally jumps out of the bowl! The cat quickly walks over to the fish, gently picks him up with his paws, and returns him to his bowl. The boy returns happily to his fish, none the wiser.

The ending is amazing in both its irony and its technical complexity. It is hard to imagine how the director could've pulled the technical feat back in 1959 -- it seems more a trick for 2003.

If you can find it, watch it -- you won't be disappointed! And if you *do* find it, let me know so I can get a copy, too!


I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class.


A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on "The Real McCoys" TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.

I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.

The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a "widow" in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called "Broadside", about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.

Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, "The Real McCoys" entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it.


Fortunately for us Real McCoy fans (most likely all Baby Boomers who grew-up in the late 50's and 60's), three of the adult actors/actress appeared when they did for the reunion show, in 2000. Tony Martinez and Richard Crenna both died shortly thereafter. As enjoyable as it was to see Luke, Sugar-Babe, and Pepino together again, it was equally mysterious about the complete absence of any mention of Lydia Reed and Michael Winkleman? It is my understanding that Little Luke had passed away in 1999, but I'm not sure how. There is no information about Hassie on the internet, that I can find. Very curious why they were not even mentioned? It was so conspicuous, their absence from the Reunion show, that I suspect that the family of Michael and Lydia herself (if still alive) either, 1) requested to be left out of the discussion and therefore their desire was granted, or 2) TNN could not find any trace of either Michael or Lydia (like the rest of us), they seemed to have vanished. Therefore, it would be the safest policy to leave them out of the conversation all together.

Otherwise, the retrospect on Walter Brennen was wonderfully done. They made no bones about it ... it was Grandpa who made the show such a success. I remember, as a child, mimicking Grandpa's gimp walk and my parents laughing (as I'm sure a million other children did back then). One annoyance that did bother me a bit, was the tendency for Richard Crenna to dominate the discussion ... at times interrupting Tony and Kathleen to make a point. In fact, although Tony Martinez seemed completely capable to contribute to the conversation, he was not allowed to speak-out and say too much during the Reunion show. Unfortunate, since I wanted to hear from all three, equally. All in all, the Reunion Show was a real treat for me. I've watched it on DVD several times and have enjoyed it each time.

Dodgerdude


I watched the McCoys reunion and was glad to see Richard Crenna and Kathleen Nolan and Tony Martinez!!!To see them now was wonderful, because I always watched the show growing up so when the TV said that there was going to be a reunion I was so excited !!!! The only thing I could not figure out is why Lydia Reed (Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman(little Luke) was not on there.I know that Walter Brennan had died. So I got on my computer and tried to find out about them and found this site so if there is anyone out there that can tell me what ever happened to Lydia Reed( Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman (little Luke I would be thankful!!! I have searched everywere and no luck .The only thing I could find out about Michael Winkelman is he was supposed to be born in 1946. This show had value and morals each show gave a lesson to be learned.The shows today dont have that.The whole cast was incredable the only thing better than finding out obout them would be to meet them So since that is impossible if there is anyone that can help please do!!! Thank You Glenda


I really enjoyed the reunion a lot! I would have rated it a 10 if they had had "Hassie" and "Little Luke". There wasn't even a mention of where they are today or why they didn't participate in the reunion. They were very popular characters and I think it was a mistake not to give an explanation about their lack of appearance.

Anyway, I was glad that TNN ran the series again! I had been looking for episodes for years and what a joy to be able to tape the whole series (I may have missed a few episodes). Jenny Hanahan


I loved The Real Mc Coys (1957-1963) It is too bad that Lydia Reed has decided to be forgotten and not appear. She was excellent in the show. Of course Walter Brennan was great as well as Tony Martínez. I loved it when he called Amos Señor Grampa.I have purchased Season I on DVD and I cannot wait to buy Seasons 2-6.If only there would be more shows on television like this one, everything would be better. This show appeared briefly in the summer of 1999 but then disappeared. God bless all the departed members of the cast and please,Llydia Reed, make yourself known again to the public. You are loved and respected. The Real Mc Coys will live forever.


Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.


The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).

The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.

Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.

My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films.


Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter  albeit resourceful  showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence  since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingénue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend  curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun  particularly at a compact 73 minutes.


The great Vincent Price has done many fantastic Horror films, some of which range among the greatest genre gems of all-time. Price's greatest achievements were doubtlessly his films in the 60s, with films such as Roger Corman's brilliant Poe-cycle (still the greatest Horror cycle of all-time), Michael Reeves' "Witchfinder General" (1968) or Ubaldo Ragona's "The Last Man on Earth" (1964) marking the ultimate highlights of this brilliant man's career. The films that made the man famous and thereby made him the immortal Horror icon he is, however date back to the 50s, with "House of Wax" (1953) marking his rise to stardom. "The Mad Magician" of 1954 follows a plot that is very similar to that of its successful predecessor. This is not to say, however, that this film isn't an original, delightfully macabre and absolutely wonderful gem itself. As the lines above may suggest, Vincent Price is my favorite actor, and, while I personally would not allow myself to miss anything the man has been in, none of my fellow fans of the man may miss this little gem.

Price stars as Don Galico (aka. Galico the Great), an underrated master magician and inventor of magic devices, whose boss, a sleazy businessman, stole his wife (Eva Gabor) from him. When the boss takes away one of Galico's ingenious inventions and gives it to his rival, The Great Rinaldi (John Emery), Galico snaps, and a murderous spree of revenge begins...

Don't we love Vincent Price when he's out for revenge? Some of his most famous and greatest films such as "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" (1971) or "Theater of Blood" (1973) were about absurd and delightfully macabre revenge murders, and this earlier film in his Horror career is another proof that no one takes revenge as Vincent Price does. This film provides a wonderfully eccentric leading role for Price, who, as always, delivers a brilliant performance, and guarantees 70 minutes of outrageously entertaining and macabre fun for every Horror fan. Another must-see for my fellow Price fans.


Basically the exact same movie as "House of Wax" - Vincent Price's first genuine horror hit released the previous year - but seriously who cares, because "The Mad Magician" offers just as many sheer thrills, delightful period set-pieces, joyous 3-D effects, sublime acting performances and macabre horror gimmicks as its predecessor! "Never change a winning team" is exactly what writer Crane Wilbur must have thought when he penned down Price's character Don Gallico, another tormented soul besieged by fate and out for vengeance against those who wronged him. Don Gallico is about to perform his very first own illusionist show as Gallico the Great and plans to exhibit the greatest magic trick in history; entitled "The Girl and the Buzz Saw". Gallico's promising solo career is abruptly ruined before it even begins when his previous employer Ross Ormond appears on stage and shoves a contract under his nose, stating that all of Gallico's inventions are the rightful property of the company. The sleazy and relentless Ormond, who by the way also ransacked Gallico's once beloved wife, takes off with the buzz saw trick and programs it in the show of Gallico's rival The Great Rinaldi. Inevitably Gallico snaps and sadistically butchers Ormond, but  also being a master of creating disguises  recreates his victim's image and even starts leading a double life. "The Mad Magician" is an amusing and thoroughly unpretentious 50's horror movie in Grand Guignol style, with a whole lot of improbably plot twists (the landlady turns out a brilliant crime novelist?) and a handful of fantastically grotesque gross-out moments (although they obviously remain suggestive for most part). The 3-D delights near the beginning of the film, like a yo-yo player and a goofy trick with water fountains, merely just serve as time-filler and contemporary 50's hype, but it's still fun to watch even now and without the means to properly behold them. "The Mad Magician" is also interesting from a periodical setting point of view, as the events take place around the time fingerprints were starting to get used as evidence material and the character of Alice Prentiss is an obvious reference towards famous crime authors of that era. Needless to state that Vincent Price remains the absolute most essential element of triumph in this film, as well as from nearly every other horror movie this legendary man ever starred in. Like no other actor could ever accomplish, Price depicts the tormented protagonist who gradually descends further and further into mental madness in such an indescribably mesmerizing way. You pity Don Gallico, yet at the same time you fear him enormously. You support his vile acts of retaliation and yet simultaneously you realize his murderous rampage must end in death. Vincent Price simply was a genius actor and, in my humble opinion, the embodiment of the horror genre.


This is essentially a variation on House Of Wax ,in both the plot and the type of role played by the star of both movies ,Vincent Price.In both pictures he plays a talented artist who is sent toppling over the edge into insanity when his creations are usurped by other,less talented and less scrupulous people .In this movie he plays a designer of illusions for stage magicians who aspires to set out on a performing career himself only to be frustrated when another illusionist ,the Great Rinaldo (John Emery)insists that he honour his contract and give him first choice of any illusions he designs.Price is already ill disposed towards Rinaldi as his former wife is now a paramour of Rinaldi. He deploys his talents as an illusionist and as a brilliant mimic to avenge himself upon Rinaldi and others who thwart his plans for recognition as a performer and a designer.

Price is pretty much the whole show here and gives a well judged star turn as a wronged man whose predicament earns audience sympathy.The rest of the cast are competent if colourless and the weight of the whole venture falls on Price who carries the burden with ease .

Good solid B Movie melodrama , this is a crime movie rather than a horror picture and is enjoyable providing you don't expect a masterpiece .Shot in black and white it is low on gore and is best seen as melodrama and enjoyed for the presence of its star giving an idiosyncratic performance


I just recently watched this 1954 movie starring Vincent Price for the first time on Turner Classic Movies. Price portrays Don Gallico, a magician/inventor who is driven to murder when his boss steals several of his magical inventions (and also his wife, portrayed in a brief role by the lovely Eva Gabor). Even though Price is a murderer, I actually found myself rooting for him, he is a sympathetic character who is driven mad by the greedy people around him who keep taking advantage of him.

Although this movie doesn't have the "horror" factor of some of his more famous roles (such as my favorite, "House of Wax") it nonetheless has enough going for it to keep the viewers interest.

This is a must for Vincent Price fans.


I couldn't believe the comments made about the movie.

As I read the awful opinions about the movie I actually wondered if you had actually viewed the same movie that I did.

What I viewed was incredible! I think the actresses and director did a fantastic job in the movie.

I hadn't had the pleasure to see either actress previously and I couldn't have been more set back by the incredible job that they did I'd have to say its the most believable movie that I've seen in a long time.

What I don't see is why everyone has such a problem with Deanna's choice of drug in the attempt of suicide scene, from the comments made you sound like it was the actresses choice and her stupid choice. That I don't understand, its a movie written by someone else and directed by someone else so how it can be the actresses error I fail to see. I think it was a real believable movie that I would see again and recommend. Opinions are what the are and its too bad that so many are so close minded. I hope to see any of the actors soon I think that all played great roles.

Busy Philipps will be the highest paid actress someday and I hope she can laugh in the face of everyone that criticized her! You Go Girl!


What a surprise; two outstanding performances by the lead actresses in this film. This is the best work Busy Phillips has ever done and the best from Erika Christensen since Traffic. This film certainly should be in Oscar contention. See this movie!


I was up late flipping cable channels one night and ran into this movie from about 10 minutes into the start - every time I even thought going to bed, something kept on telling me to keep on watching it even though it was way way way past my bedtime.

This movie could have been another easy slam dunk anti-gun film, but instead they chose to examine the aftereffects of the shootings. And even better, the movie kept on with the real life - just when you think they are going to take the easy and obviously contrived way out, a twist comes along and changes the whole outlook of the movie. This film not only doesn't follow the formula, it shows how other events often lead up to and/or affect what happens afterwards.

I only wish the filmmakers had explored the issues around anti-depressant drugs more - the kids from Columnbine who did the shootings were on them for years and it was frightening to watch the way Deanna popped them every time the nightmares started. Up until recently they were dispensing the stuff like candy and only now do they even begin to understand what long term effects the drugs have. It was very refreshing to see that the mental illness aspect of the story was given quite a bit of film, having a relative who suffers from a mental illness, I can say that the movie was dead nuts on in every aspect of mental illnesses. Bravo to the director and writer who obviously did their homework on those issues. And for those who think certain things couldn't happen in a hospital (I don't want to tell any particulars), you're dead wrong on that too - I've been there. The script was so real it was amazing.

Go BUY this film and show it to your teenage kids before it's too late. Someday they'll thank you for it.


Why a stupid, boring, crappy overrated film series like "Star Wars" gets all the hype, and a truly amazing film like this one goes completely un-noticed.. is beyond me... This movie will really open your eyes to the dark, disturbing, sad, and scary world we live in...

Unlike the boring "Elephant", this movie isn't one of those "just a typical day until someome pulls the trigger" movies.. this movie focuses more on what happens AFTER the event...

Deana, played by the very hot and very talented Erika Christensen, is a happy and healthy straight-A student with great friends and a great life... until... she is injured on the day of the shooting, by being shot in the head.. Luckily she is not killed, but is severely injured and has to be in the hospital for a while, causing her to be in a lot of emotional pain, in addition to the physical...

Meanwhile, Alicia, played by the also very gorgeous and talented Busy Phillips, is a nasty, cold-hearted, rebellious, anti-social goth girl who doesn't have a single positive trait on her... and she is unharmed when the shooting happens.. because it turns out, she was FRIENDS with the shooter and knew he was going to do what he did... which causes her to be brought into the police station and be asked some questions.. When she refuses to tell the cops if she knew the shooting was going to happen, they constantly come by her house to try to convince her to say something... and she still doesn't, so the principal of the school makes her attend a funeral of one of the dead students, and after she walks out on that... the principal decides enough is enough, and forces her to go visit Deana in the hospital.. Of course she refuses this too, but the principal says that if Alicia doesn't do this, the cops are going to continue to try to get her to say something.. and so she actually goes to see her...

The lonely, traumatized, and both physically and emotionally wounded Deana is more than happy to have someone visit her, but of course, Alicia is anything BUT happy to be seeing her.. Deana attempts to give her a friendly welcome, but of course, Alicia responds with nothing but harsh and hurtful comments and a harsh statement on how she is only here because she is being forced, and has no intention of being friendly with her at all. But sooner or later, that intention will change... (and that's all I'll say :) This is truly one of the most moving movies ever, as well as one of the most dark and disturbing.. Actually, I think I would tie this with "American History X" as equally disturbing and moving at the same time...

WARNING: Watch this movie at your own risk!! It contains VERY graphic scenes and images! EXCELLENT and criminally under-appreciated movie! I feel so ashamed that I'm pretty much the only one that knows about it!


The industry dropped the ball on this. The trailer does not do the movie justice and when this opened it was on a hand full of screens. Had people had an opportunity to see this, work of mouth would have made it very successful. The 2 lead actresses each give great emotional performances that really draw you in to the story and especially the characters. I checked this out based on the rave recommendation Richard Roeper or (Ebert and Roeper) in his book. An example of a great film that never got fully released except on a few screens. Which gave it no chance to be seen. Some movies go to video quickly because they aren't that good. This is Oscar worthy and it's a tragedy on many levels that most will never even hear of it. Maybe via word of mouth it will gain a following on DVD or cable. If you haven't see this movie you should. Great performances of the 2 lead actresses make this movie. It could have just been another formulaic teen movie after school special but instead it stands up well to other note worthy films. Girl Interrupted comes to mind. If you like that you will like this.

Both girls are in one amazing emotional scene after another without coming off as melodramatic. Even though Alicia is angry and Deanna is crying through most of the movie it is done is such a real way that they do not come off as stereotypical characters or as melodramatic. The movie will move you in many scenes and if you are an aspiring actor use these real performances as your school. Erica is even better in this than in Traffic. I hope both of these actors get more roles that utilize their talents as well and let them shine. See this movie and if you like, recommend to friends so it doesn't get lost among all the blockbuster crap that comes out every year. This movie was buried while Spiderman 2 tops records. What kind of word are we living in? AGHhh. So to make the world right again see this and recommend it.


"Home Room" came as a total surprise. Not having a clue as to what it was all about, it paid off big time because it doesn't hold any punches and what we see is how lives are changed by the act of a disgruntled young man who decided to victimize his class mates, who are the innocent victims of his rash actions.

Paul Ryan, the director, who is working and editing his own material, is a talented man who is rewarded by some amazing acting all around by his cast.

Alicia Browning is an older girl who is trying to graduate high school. She has been away a couple of years and doesn't seem to be in the same wave length of the other students. For one, she is a rebel with a punk look, lots of makeup and a mouth that will cut anyone who dares to come near her orbit. Alicia was among the students in the home room where nine students have died, supposedly killed by her boyfriend. Alicia, we realize, is a wounded girl who has gone through a terrible ordeal in her life, but we are not given any clues to that effect.

What follows is the aftermath of the tragedy, as it concentrates on a young woman who has survived it. Deanna Cartwright is a wealthy teen ager who shouldn't have been at the school, at all. When a ricochet bullet hit her, she is hospitalized with more than a wound. She is trying to get over this dark period in her mind but the nightmares don't let her forget.

Alicia is made to go to the hospital by the school principal. Since she doesn't cooperate with the police, the head of the school wants her to see Deanna in her terrible state and perhaps she will soften up and will tell the authorities what she knows. Alicia dislikes Deanna, but in a matter of days, both girls will make peace. We don't realize until the last sequence what really happened that horrible day in school.

Busy Phillips makes an excellent Alicia and Erika Christiansen is equally good as Deanna. Victor Garber, James Pinkins, Taylor Holland, and the rest of the cast play as an ensemble.

The film has an intensity because it's not explicit in showing how the shootings occurred, which helps the tone that Mr. Ryan wanted to give this movie.


This film isn't just about a school shooting, in fact its never even seen. But that just adds to the power this film has. Its about people and how they deal with tragedy. I know it was shown to the students who survived the Columbine shooting and it provided a sense of closure for a lot of them. The acting is superb. All three main actors (Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen and Victor Garber) are excellent in their roles...I highly recommend this film to anyone. Its one of those films that makes you talk about it after you see it. It provokes discussion of not only school shootings but of human emotions and reactions to all forms of tragedy. It is a tear-jerker but it is well worth it and one i will watch time and time again