Datasets:

denis1203

/

imdb3000examples

like 0

On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.<br /><br />As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.<br /><br />The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.<br /><br />Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.<br /><br />In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.<br /><br />"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.<br /><br />In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come.

The Movie was sub-par, but this Television Pilot delivers a great springboard into what has become a Sci-Fi fans Ideal program. The Actors deliver and the special effects (for a television series) are spectacular. Having an intelligent interesting script doesn't hurt either.<br /><br />Stargate SG1 is currently one of my favorite programs.

I started watching the show from the first season, and at the beginning I was pretty skeptical about it. Original movie was kind of childish, and I was just looking for some sci-fi show while waiting for the BSG new season.<br /><br />But after few episodes I became a fan. I've loved the characters - the not-so-stupid-as-you-think-he-is Jack O'Neill, the not-only-smart Samantha Carter, the glorious Teal'c, women and kids favorite, and brilliant Dr. Daniel Jackson.<br /><br />Of course, stories sometimes not serious, sometimes even ridiculous, but mostly it's not about technology or space fighting - it's about helping your friend, even risking your life for him. It's about "we don't leave anybody behind". Struggling to the end when all hope is lost. About the free will, and all good qualities that makes a human - Human.<br /><br />And now it's breaking a record, going 10th season, and still doing good.

I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.<br /><br />Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.<br /><br />I was a great fan of the film "Stargate" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation

I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool.

It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.<br /><br />Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.<br /><br />The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.<br /><br />Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.

Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, humans were enslaved and transported to habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot, and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.<br /><br />Presently, the Earth stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Shanks), Capt. Samantha Carter (Tapping) and Teal'c (Judge) compose the original SG-1 team (a few characters join and/or leave the team in later seasons). Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races.<br /><br />The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as Egyptian Gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race was the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Baal and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies—the Ancients.

Stargate SG-1 is a spin off of sorts from the 1994 movie "Stargate." I am so glad that they decided to expand on the subject. The show gets it rolling from the very first episode, a retired Jack O'Neill has to go through the gate once more to meet with his old companion, Dr. Daniel Jackson. Through the first two episodes, we meet Samantha Carter, a very intelligent individual who lets no one walk over her, and there is Teal'c, a quiet, compassionate warrior who defies his false god and joins the team. <br /><br />The main bad guys are called the Gouald, they are parasites who can get inserted into one's brain, thus controlling them and doing evil deeds. Any Gouald who has a massive amount of power is often deemed as a "System Lord." The warriors behind the Gouald are called Jaffa, who house the parasitic Gouald in their bodies until the Gouald can get inserted in a person's brain.<br /><br />Through the episodes, we mostly get to see SG-1, the exploratory team comprised of Jack/Daniel/Teal'c/and Sam, go through the wormhole that instantly transports them to other planets (this device is called the Stargate) and they encounter new cultures or bad guys. Some episodes are on-world, meaning that they do not go through the Stargate once in the episode and rather deal with pressing issues on Earth.<br /><br />Through the years, you start to see a decline in the SG-1 team as close knit, and more character-building story lines. This, in turn means even more on-world episodes, which is perfectly understandable.<br /><br />My rating: 8.75/10----While most of this show is good, there are some instances of story lines not always getting wrapped up and less of an emphasis on gate travel these last few years. But still, top notch science fiction!

I LOVE Jack's jokes like 'The cliché is...' or "Over the top cliché guy, black, oily skin, kinda spooky...". He is just hilarious! Daniel's starting to catch up on him to! Good thing Jack's not on the team anymore (in a way) or else it would have been sarcasm mania!!!!I just love all the plots (season 8, a little less, I have to admit), the characters are great, the actors are great, I'm starting to pick up facial expressions (and more) from Jack, Daniel and Teal'c...It just all theoretically possible and exciting...oops! Their I go again!!! Sorry, I'm also starting to pick up traits from Carter, and all of this is driving my parents NUTZ!!!!!!! Well, to conclude, I think it's good for another three seasons or so, especially if they keep on packing the episodes with all this humor, drama, action and so forth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love this show!<br /><br />Every time i watch an episode i repeat that line and remind myself how good of a show this is. I am a huge sci-fi fan and this show has grounds to be the most important science (fiction?) show in the history of film/TV. There are so many theories in this show about the universe i could start a religion. Its amazing, season after season the show gets better and better.<br /><br />I've been a fan of MacGyver since i was 5 (19 now) and i find it so ironic that my 2 favorite TV shows of all time star Richard Dean Anderson. Its also interesting how each character is practically the opposite of the other.<br /><br />Back when i first saw Stargate the movie, i instantly liked it and considered it one of my favorite sci-fi flicks, then hearing a TV show would spin from it i got really excited, but didn't get showtime till the fifth season was almost over.<br /><br />Though, I'm disappointed to hear that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wanted to do a trilogy of movies but the studio optioned the series instead. <br /><br />Id say though that it turned out just fine. Maybe even better.<br /><br />This show is amazing, and i hope it never dies. Atlantis here we come!

Fact: Stargate SG-1 is a cheesy sci-fi TV series.<br /><br />There's no escaping facts. How much you try to excuse yourself or explain it Stargate SG-1 remains a cheesy sci-fi TV series.<br /><br />Stargate SG-1 does borrow and steal ideas briskly. Special FX aren't nearly as impressive as they could have been and the action isn't going to blow you out of the chair. Or couch for that matter either.<br /><br />But, and this is where I really think Stargate SG-1 deserves all the credit it can get, for each and every episode or stolen idea I think you can count at least one cheesy sci-fi movie that's actually worse than a one hour TV episode.<br /><br />In fact some episodes actually could probably have been 90 minutes long and still have been better than most movies.<br /><br />And being able to keep that quality throughout the show and keep delivering and pushing the storyline further is what makes Stargate SG-1 special.<br /><br />I am very picky with my selections. I follow perhaps one or two TV series at most and I hold pretty high standards which made me even more surprised when I found myself caught.<br /><br />So for those who decide to brush of Stargate SG-1 as yet another tacky sci-fi show, don't. Stick with it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I got in to this excellent program in about season 4 and since then i have seen all the episodes got all the episodes on DVD and keeps getting better and better with the seasons of 9 and 10. It now may not have Richard Dean Anderson now but the addition of Ben Browder and Claudie Black it has still given the show more strength and original still even after 10 seasons. Sadly now the sci-fi channel got rid of this amazing show with no hope relay for a 11 season there are making two direct to DVD movie and hopefully more. Atlantis is still going strong on its 4th seasons. And there is a third spin off in the works the stargate franchise is nowhere near dead. This TV show is a must see for all sci-fi fans and people of genres because this has such a wide range of things to appeal to all ages and all types of people Watch IT !!!!! 10/10

OK, let's get this clear. I'm really not into sci-fi, but for some reason I love Stargate SG-1. <br /><br />Jack O'Neil takes his team SG-1 through a Stargate. A round device that creates a wormhole. It gives you the ability to travel to distant worlds. It might sound like your usual sci-fi-series, but it's not! The plot is set today not in some distant millennium like many other sci-fi-series. I find that great. It gives you things, happenings and such you can relate to, and you can jump into the series at any time without having to learn many new terms and names of all the gadgets. They have some of course but thanks to O'Neil who likes to keep a simple terminology, there's not many. <br /><br />The series has a nice blending of action, humor and drama. If you enjoy loads of special effects you're not going to find it here. They don't use many bad ones but a limited amount of well made special effects.

Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the most faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.<br /><br />The most obvious plus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. While events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is present. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far superior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The big payoff of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.<br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty well with this. If you can find this series, give it a look.

Verhoeven's movie was utter and complete garbage. He's a disgusting hack of a director and should be ashamed. By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch.<br /><br />Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It basically steals the name, mocks politics of the book (which is a good portion of it), and throws in some T&A so the average idiot American moviegoer doesn't get bored.<br /><br />This anime isn't perfect, but it's at least mostly accurate, as best I can tell.

After a brief prologue showing a masked man stalking and then slashing the throat of an older gentleman on a deserted, urban, turn of the century Australian street, we meet Julie (Rebecca Gibney) and Peter (John Adam) as they go out house hunting. They manage to get a loan for a fixer-upper on a posh Sydney street, but it turns out that physical disrepair is not the only problem with their new home. It just may be haunted.<br /><br />13 Gantry Row combines a memorable if somewhat clichéd story with good to average direction by Catherine Millar into a slightly above average shocker.<br /><br />The biggest flaws seem partially due to budget, but not wholly excusable to that hurdle. A crucial problem occurs at the beginning of the film. The opening "thriller scene" features some wonky editing. Freeze frames and series of stills are used to cover up the fact that there's not much action. Suspense should be created from staging, not fancy "fix it in the mix" techniques. There is great atmosphere in the scene from the location, the lighting, the fog and such, but the camera should be slowly following the killer and the victim, cutting back and forth from one to the other as we track down the street, showing their increasing proximity. The tracking and the cuts need to be slow. The attack needed to be longer, clearer and better blocked. As it stands, the scene has a strong "made for television" feel, and a low budget one at that.<br /><br />After this scene we move to the present and the flow of the film greatly improves. The story has a lot of similarities to The Amityville Horror (1979), though the budget forces a much subtler approach. Millar and scriptwriter Tony Morphett effectively create a lot of slyly creepy scenarios, often dramatic in nature instead of special effects-oriented, such as the mysterious man who arrives to take away the old slabs of iron, which had been bizarrely affixed to an interior wall.<br /><br />For some horror fans, the first section of the film might be a little heavy on realist drama. At least the first half hour of the film is primarily about Julie and Peter trying to arrange financing for the house and then trying to settle in. But Morphett writes fine, intelligent dialogue. The material is done well enough that it's often as suspenseful as the more traditional thriller aspects that arise later--especially if you've gone through similar travails while trying to buy your own house.<br /><br />Once they get settled and things begin to get weirder, even though the special effects often leave much to be desired, the ideas are good. The performances help create tension. There isn't an abundance of death and destruction in the film--there's more of an abundance of home repair nightmares. But neither menace is really the point.<br /><br />The point is human relationships. There are a number of character arcs that are very interesting. The house exists more as a metaphor and a catalyst for stress in a romantic relationship that can make it go sour and possibly destroy it. That it's in a posh neighborhood, and that the relationship is between two successful yuppies, shows that these problems do not only afflict those who can place blame with some external woe, such as money or health problems. Peter's character evolves from a striving corporate employee with "normal" work-based friendships to someone with more desperation as he becomes subversive, scheming to attain something more liberating and meaningful. At the same time, we learn just how shallow those professional friendships can be. Julie goes through an almost literal nervous breakdown, but finally finds liberation when she liberates herself from her failing romantic relationship.<br /><br />Although 13 Gantry Row never quite transcends its made-for-television clunkiness, as a TV movie, this is a pretty good one, with admirable ambitions. Anyone fond of haunted house films, psycho films or horror/thrillers with a bit more metaphorical depth should find plenty to enjoy. It certainly isn't worth spending $30 for a DVD (that was the price my local PBS station was asking for a copy of the film after they showed it (factoring in shipping and handling)), but it's worth a rental, and it's definitely worth watching for free.

Another Aussie masterpiece, this delves into the world of the unknown and the supernatural, and it does very well. It doesn't resort to the big special effects overkill like American flicks, it focuses more on emotional impact. A relatively simple plot that Rebecca Gibney & Co. bring to life. It follows the story of a couple who buy an old house that was supposedly home to a very old woman who never went outside, and whose husband disappeared in mysterious circumstances a century ago. Strange things begin to happen in the house, and John Adam begins to turn into the man who disappeared, who was actually a mass murderer. Highly recommended. 8/10

Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.<br /><br />True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.<br /><br />Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks!

Somewhat funny and well-paced action thriller that has Jamie Foxx as a hapless, fast-talking hoodlum who is chosen by an overly demanding U.S. Treasury Agent (David Morse) to be released on the streets of New York to find a picky computer thief/hacker (Doug Hutchinson), who stole forty-two million dollars from the treasury and left two guards shot dead.<br /><br />"Bait" marks the sophomore feature for Antoine Fuqua ("The Replacement Killers") and he handles the task fairly well even though it doesn't top his first movie. What the two films have in common is the action sequences, which are flat-out excellent.<br /><br />Foxx is pretty good here although his character is annoying in the beginning, but throughout the film, I began to catch on. Hutchinson is marvelous as the mastermind who can be ruthless as John Malkovich and patient as the late Laurence Olivier was in "Marathon Man". Morse is okay as the agent who comes up with the ingenious plan to get whoever did it at all cost.

I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.<br /><br />Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.

I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...<br /><br />Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.<br /><br />The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.<br /><br />All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.<br /><br />PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo.

This is a really interesting movie. It is an action movie with comedy mixed in. Foxx teams up with comedian Epps in this movie to give it a comedic spin. It will keep you wondering whats going to happen to Foxx next. It was a well shot movie, the director used the right colors in this movie(dark blue colors) to give it the right kind of feel. Kimberly Elise also starred in this movie and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. She plays her role well. Even Jamie Kennedy is in this movie. It's worth seeing it you haven't seen it. It's definitely worth having if you are a Jamie Foxx fan. It deserves more credit than it is actually given.

I have to agree with most of the other posts. Was it a comedy? a drama? to me it leaned a little to much towards the comedy side. I could have been a great movie without the comedy and it was horribly contrived. Jamie keeps running into the Julio and whats his name. In New York, how many times do you run into someone you know in downtown Cleveland.And just how could Robert Pastorelli dig up Yankee Stadium to hide the gold. Again, a comedy or drama? But it was still entertaining especially for a Sunday morning. I enjoyed Kimberly Elise's performance, she certainly a beautiful actress and seems to take her craft seriously. She is a younger actress that is going to be viable.

This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.

This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.

I watched this movie once and might watch it again, but although Jamie Foxx is good in the movie, I feel they could have used a 'less funny' character as Alvin Sanders. Foxx's scenes for instance in the jail when he is confronted by Edgar Clenteen (David Morse) are too funny. David Morse again is a wonderful portrayer of a cop. His tough yet mostly quiet features are perfect for his role. Once again Morse meets Doug Hutchinson (Bristol) in the theater. Morse ends up coming down hard on Hutchinson. They are both perfect for this scenario in each film. I personally love that quality in a film, where actors end up in the same situation as a previous film, as these two did in The Green Mile. Overall it was a pretty good movie.

Actually this movie was not so bad. It contains action, comedy and excitement. There are good actors in this film, for instance Doug Hutchison (Percy from "The Green Mile"), who plays Bristol. Another well known actor is Jamie Kennedy, from "Scream" and "Three Kings". The main characters are played by Jamie Foxx as Alvin, who was pretty good and also funny, but the one who most surprised me, was David Morse as Edgar Clenteen. He plays a different character than he usually does, because in other films like "The Green Mile", "Indian Runner", "The Negotiator" or "The Langoliers" he plays a very sympathetic person, and in "Bait" the plays almost the opposite, a man without any emotions, which was nice to see. The only really negative thing about this film, are the several pictures of the World Trade Center, which makes this film perhaps look a little dated. Overall I thought this was a pretty good little film!

I had no expectations; I'd never heard of Jamie Foxx; all I knew was that the film has some strong character actors in it. I thought it was highly entertaining; it was fun. The plot was different and unpredictable enough to hold my interest. To me, Foxx is an original. David Morse is terrific (true, this is not his finest role). I thought the chases and pyrotechnics contributed to the film and were well done. I didn't expect a lot and I was happily surprised.

I really am shocked to see the number of reviews that lambaste this movie. This movie was not intended to be a "deep thought" movie, which is what the vast majority of the reviewers seem to think it should be. In fact, it would appear that if ANY movie doesn't produce a life altering insight, and a deep, twisted, mind boggling plot, they would rate it a 1 or 2. Don't trash a movie because you don't like the genre, people.<br /><br />This movie was an Action/Comedy flick, and that's all it was intended to be. And for an Action/Comedy, it was very well done. I was actually rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did, having never really been a Jamie Foxx fan, and having the over-used plot that it has.<br /><br />The plot was nothing spectacular, using the typical criminal gets out of prison, and is thrown into bad-guy plot while trying to clean up his act (See Blue Streak, Hudson Hawk, 48 Hours, etc. etc. etc.) but it was warmed over with a bit of a technological twist. Now the "bad guys" are actually the "good guys" and the REAL "bad guy" is an uber-geek.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx actually plays a convincingly humorous, while at the same time rather intelligent and serious main character, and didn't try to overdo the humor side of the film.<br /><br />If you're looking for a deep underlying plot such as in "The Matrix" or a drama such as "Of Mice and Men" then this movie isn't for you. But if you enjoy the raw action, excellent fast-paced filming, and an occasional twist of humor tossed in, this movie won't disappoint you. I would normally have rated it about an 8 (on the same level as the Die Hard Trilogy), but instead gave it a 10 to try and bring the score up to what it SHOULD be.<br /><br />

I really liked this movie. Of course the idea is pretty much out there...the federal government arranging to have a tracking device implanted into the jaw of an small-time thief to lure a more dangerous thief/computer hacker out of hiding. But Alvin Sanders, the man who the feds have "volunteered" to be implanted with the device, is a very likable person and it turns out to be a lot of fun getting in his head with him for a little while. Alvin even eventually proves himself to be much more than a good-humored but passive or one-dimensional character when he shows that he is not nearly as easily manipulated as he may seem. Definetly worth a watch.

Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time.

I liked this movie. When the guy who was in on a bank heist of $40 million in gold dies, his cell mate is used as "Bait" to lead them to the high-tech crazy killer partner (by having a monitoring device implanted in his jaw without his knowledge). It's an action, spy type film with enough comical scenes to keep it light. It reminded me of Enemy Of The State. Well acted and good enough plot.

The movie is great and I like the story. I prefer this movie than other movie such The cell ( sick movie ) and Highlander ( silly movie ). I just tell the truth, I like a reality hehe and also a true story :)<br /><br />

If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will love his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is lots of laughs, drama, cold blood killings and excellent film locations and plenty of expensive cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were outstanding actors in this film and it was great entertainment through out the entire picture.

This film resembles in many ways `Enemy of the State' with Will Smith and Gene Hackman, as we have an innocent (black) man being pursued by the `government' with all the modern technology known to man. Usually when storyline is copied like this the result is a disaster. That does not apply here. Of course I love everything David Morse does, so maybe my comments are not fair, but there were more good things about this film then that. The main baddy, played by Doug Hutchison, was brilliant, and the story flowed with excellent extras such as David Paymer and Robert Pastorelli. Our hero, Alvin Sanders (played by Jamie Foxx), was however irritating most of the part. He is so out of place, cracking bad jokes, evoking no sympathy from the audience. Or not to begin with, the strange thing is that he kinda grows on you (and on his followers as well!). I didn't expect much when I rented it, but was surprised with a good solid action movie with comedy bits. 7/10

I happened across "Bait" on cable one night just as it started and thought, "Eh, why not?" I'm glad I gave it a chance. <br /><br />"Bait" ain't perfect. It suffers from unnecessarily flashy direction and occasional dumbness. But overall, this movie worked. All the elements aligned just right, and they pulled off what otherwise could have been a pretty ugly film. <br /><br />Most of that, I think, is due to Jamie Foxx. I don't know who tagged Foxx for the lead, but whoever it was did this movie a big favor. Believable and amazingly likeable, Foxx glides through the movie, smooth as butter and funnier than hell. You can tell he's working on instinct, and instinct doesn't fail him.<br /><br />The plot, while unimportant, actually ties together pretty well, and there's even a character arc through which Foxx's character grows as a person. Again, they could've slipped by without any of this, but it just makes things that much better.<br /><br />I'm surprised at the low rating for this. Maybe I just caught this move on the right night, or vice versa, but I'd give it a 7/10. Bravo, Mssr. Foxx.

I think this film has much to recommend it, particularly an especially sinister performance by David Morse and a more than passable performance by the always worth watching Mr. Foxx. Although there are a lot of holes in the plot and the motivation is very, very hard to follow in some cases, all in all, it makes for a nice time in front of the tube.

This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more. <br /><br />It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.

Sterling and younger brother try to survive on land, being squeezed by big cattlemen. When 'rogue' brother Preston arrives, a moral dilemma ensues. John 'Drew' Barrymore steals the show as the younger, impressionable brother-Barrymore shows signs here that he could have been an acting powerhouse. Moves at a nice pace to an exciting climax.

The summary line above, spoken by James Cloud (Robert Preston) to his brother Tom (Robert Sterling) just about says it all. Jim, AKA Kid Wichita, has a way of making things happen, only trouble is, he usually leaves dead bodies where he's been. Not the sort of mentoring Tom envisions for younger brother Jeff, who likes what he sees in Jim, especially when defending their ranch against local Texas cattlemen.<br /><br />The opening credits state 'Introducing John Barrymore Jr. as the Younger Brother', in this his very first screen appearance. That seemed rather odd to me, particularly since he was addressed as Jeff almost immediately into the story. Approximately eighteen at the time of this movie, he bears a passing resemblance to Sean Penn. No stranger to personal and legal problems throughout his career as well as estrangement from his family, I was left wondering if his daughter Drew Barrymore might have ever seen this picture. I'm inclined to think not.<br /><br />On the subject of resemblances, I was also struck by the thought that the young Robert Sterling looked a bit like Roy Rogers early in his career. Knowing Sterling previously only from his role as George Kerby in the early 1950's TV series 'Topper', I thought he looked out of place in a Western, but that might just be me. His character becomes emboldened by his brother's resourcefulness at creating trouble, and provides some of the edginess to this not so typical story. Minor subplots abound, including the relationship rancher John Gall (John Litel) has with his son the Sheriff (who Kid Wichita kills), and the troubled marriage between Kathleen Boyce (Cathy Downs) and her husband Earl (who Kid Wichita kills). Chill Wills rounds out the main cast as one of Tom Cloud's hired hands, and figures in the somewhat predictable finale.<br /><br />What's not quite predictable is how things eventually wind up there, and for that reason, this Western earns points for following a less traveled, hence not quite as formulaic a plot as a lot of good brother/bad brother Westerns do. Combined with the eclectic casting of the principals, it's one I'd recommend, even if you have to endure some of the jump cuts and sloppy editing that I experienced with my copy.

Peaceful rancher Robert Sterling is on the losing side of a range war with his ruthless neighbors, that is until notorious outlaw Robert Preston shows up out of the blue to level the playing field. Soon he begins to go too far, feeding a growing sense of unease in Sterling, especially when his son begins to idolize the wily criminal.<br /><br />The Sundowners is a tightly-paced, gritty, and surprisingly tough little picture with a great performance by Preston. Here, he comes across as an evil version of Shane, that is until the real nature of the rancher and the outlaw's relationship is revealed. Most movie guides and video boxes spoil the surprise!<br /><br />Rounding out the cast is Chill Wills, Jack Elam, and the debut of John Drew Barrymore, who became more famous for his offspring than his acting.

Billed as Takashi Miike's "first family film" - by people who haven't seen Zebraman, presumably. YOKAI DAISENSO takes things even further in the direction of family-friendliness, diluting the darkness and cynicism to create a grand fantasy fairy tale. A young boy is chosen by fate to save the world from monsters and horrors of which they remain largely unaware. The film is evidently bigger budget than anything else Miike has done, with lots of CGI to create fantasy world populated by odd creatures (the YOKAI). Perhaps the lack of extreme content is a consequence of more nervous investors, but I think it's probably just that he wanted to do something different. He's really never been a one-trick pony, but often gets accused of it - perhaps YOKAI is designed to silence those critics. Regardless, it's a great project for Miike to channel his boundless imagination and invention into.<br /><br />There's a very cartoonish feel to the production, evoking thoughts of Miyazaki in places. The Yokai are based on an old series of comics that were in turned based on Japanese folk tales, which certainly influenced Miyazaki as well (particularly SPIRITED AWAY). It must remembered that Miike has nothing like the budget of a Harry Potter film to work with, so the special effects aren't going to be seamless Hollywood style work - some blue-screening is especially obvious. Some of the special effects are great though, with some very well animated creatures (a mix of CG, stop-motion and puppetry). I think the little sock-puppet that follows the hero around for much of the film was *meant* to look really cheap, and is all the cuter for it :) The young lad who plays the hero of the film does a really good job - it's so hard to find a pre-teen who actually understands the concept of acting, but 9 year old Ryunosuke Kamiki is a genuine talent (I see he did voices in the last 2 Miyazaki films!). Chiaki Kuriyama is delicious as the villainess of the piece, though Mai Takahashi made an even greater impression as the pixie-eared River Princess - yum yum! Those looking for another violent, perverted gangster film aren't going to find what they're looking for in YOKAI, but if you're a fan of Miike because of his imagination and wit, there's plenty to satisfy here. And it has the added bonus that you can happily put it on whatever company you've got :)

Where was this film when I was a kid? After his parents split up Tadashi moves with his mom to live his his grandfather. Tadashi's sister stays with their dad and they talk frequently on the phone. Grandfather is only "here" every third day. Moms never really home. The kids always are picking on the poor kid. During a village festival Tadashi is chosen the "kirin rider" or spiritual champion of the peace and justice. Little does he suspect that soon he will have to actually step into role of hero as the forces of darkness join up with the rage of things discarded in a plot to destroy mankind and the spiritual world.<br /><br />Okay that was the easy part. Now comes the hard part, trying to explain the film.<br /><br />This is a great kids film. No this is a great film,flawed, (very flawed?) but a great film none the less. It unfolds like all of those great books you loved as a kid and is just as dense at times as Tadashi struggles to find the strength to become a hero. Watching it I felt I was reading a great book, and thought how huge this would have been if it was a book. I loved that the film does not follow a normal path. Things often happen out of happenstance or through miscommunication, one character gets sucked into events simply because his foot falls asleep. There are twists and turns and moments that seem like non sequiters and are all the more charming for it (which is typical Miike) Certainly its a Takashi Miike film. That Japanese master of film is clearly in charge of a film that often touching, scary and funny all at the same time. No one except Miike seems to understand that you can have many emotions at the same time, or that you can suddenly have twists as things get dark one second and then funny the next. I admire the fact that Miike has made a film that is bleak and hopeful, that doesn't shy away from being scary, I mean really scary, especially for kids. This is the same dark territory that should be in the Harry Potter movies but rarely is. This a dark Grimms tale with humor. My first reaction upon seeing the opening image was that I couldn't believe anyone would begin a kids film with a picture of the end of the world, then I realized who was making the movie. Hats off to Miike for making a movie that knows kids can handle the frightening images.<br /><br />Its also operating on more than one level. The mechanical monsters that the bad guys make are forged from mankind's discarded junk. Its the rage of being thrown away that fuels the monsters.One of the Yokai (spirits) talks about the rage sneakers thrown away because they are dirty or too small feels when they are tossed. You also have one of the good guys refusing to join the bad guys because that would be the human thing to do. Its a wild concept, but like other things floating around its what lifts this movie to another level. (there are a good many riffs and references to other movies,TV shows and novels that make me wonder who this film is for since kids may not understand them, though many parents will) And of course there are the monsters. They run the gamut from cheesy to spectacular with stops everywhere in between. Frankly you have to forgive the unevenness of their creation simply because they are has to be hundreds if not thousands of monsters on screen. Its way cool and it works. One of the main characters is a Yokai which I think is best described as a hamster in a tunic and is often played by a stuffed animal, it looks dumb and yet you will be cheering the little bugger and loving every moment he rides on Tadashi's head. (Acceptance is also easier if you've ever seen the old woodcuts of the weird Japanese monsters) I mentioned flaws, and there are a few. The effects are uneven, some of the sudden turns are a bit odd (even if understandable) and a few other minor things which are fading now some two hours after watching the film.. None of them truly hurt the film over all, however most kind of keep you from being completely happy with the movie.<br /><br />I really loved this movie. I'm pretty sure that if I saw this as a kid it would have been my favorite film of all time. (where's the English dub?).See this movie. Its a great trip. (Besides its a good introduction to the films of Miike minus the blood and graphic sex)

Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended.

Also known as the Big Spook War. The Great Yokai War is Miike's attempt at a family film and damn fine job he does as well. The problem is that I can't imagine many parents wanting to subject their children to this movie. The best kids movies are the ones that are scary or have mildly disturbing imagery, Neverending Story and Return to Oz spring to mind, but in the case of the Great Yokai War Miike probably takes things a little too far. In fact at the screening I was at the person introducing the movie reiterated to the two families there that it was probably not very suitable.<br /><br />The film kicks off with the young hero of the piece introducing himself and explaining about his current family problems. This brief moment of mundanity is sharply broken as a cow gives birth to a calf with the face of a human whom screams that something horrendous is coming before falling dead like the abomination it is (it is quite possible that the sheer hideousness of the creature is some bizarre Quato homage).<br /><br />Following an incredible introduction for main baddie Kato, and his henchwoman Agi (a surprisingly attractive Chiaki Kuriyami), by way of an apocalyptic army raising. The story reverts to normal for a while, but it doesn't take long before any and all logic goes down the drain and the young boy teams up with a group of Miyazaki rejects to take out the evil sorcerer.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is fairly basic and surprisingly hackneyed at times, the entire chosen one just seems completely out of place in a movie which so regularly breaks clichés, but is aided by a simple awe inspiring vision of a magical world. This really is a Miyazaki movie made into a live action movie, albeit a much seedier and more vicious than usual Miyazaki movie.<br /><br />The film is simply a joy to look at the designs of the Yokai is colourful, and largely practical, while the evil robotic monstrosities while not displaying the best CGI in the world have a practicality and menace to them which gives them far more of a palpable threat than you would imagine.<br /><br />The cast is uniformly excellent, they just make their characters seem perfectly natural which is commendable when you consider that most of them are in full body makeup or latex suits. Even Agi lumbered with a ridiculous beehive comes across as sultry and deadly thanks to surprisingly excellent acting from Kuriyami.<br /><br />While the film does have many elements which put it firmly into family movie territory; cute creatures, junior heroes, a thoroughly evil villain, a sense of mischief and adventure, and a telling lack of violence. There are elements which make you question whether Miike should have directed such a movie.<br /><br />The robot army is a genuinely terrifying menace everyday items warped into monstrous beasts that look like T-101 sans skin and with added chainsaws. These beasts rip characters to pieces; suck creatures into their blood stained mouths, and abduct children from their homes by swiping them right from under their parent's nose before indulging in a little patricide.<br /><br />The creation of the creature is equally arduous for young minds. The Yokai, essentially the heroes, are feed into a giant furnace full of a liquidised form of hate which corrodes the Yokai's flesh and forces their angry souls to possess lumps of metal. If kids thought smouldering Anakin was bad wait til they see a man sized hedgehog burning to death in a vat of molten hatred for a minute before being turned into an abomination of a motorcycle. There is also limb severing, in one case a severed hand twitches in front of the camera dripping with blood, a fair amount of sexual energy (Agi wears one dress designed specifically for fan service and seems to only have sleeping with Kato as motivation, while the Princess of the Rivers wears next to nothing and gets her thighs groped by the young hero in several scenes), and general humour which will go right over the heads of those that this technicolour wonder was seemingly designed for.<br /><br />Spoilers An Example of this being that the Yokai only become interested in the final battle when they think it is a big party. The subsequent battle more of a festival than anything, complete with beer, crowd surfing and moshing. Also a scene where Agi beats the tar out of a cute furry creature seems designed to appeal to the masses jaded by pokemon overkill.<br /><br />End Spoilers At the end of the day The Great Yokai War is easily on of Miike's stronger recent films. While it lacks some of the perverse charm of say Gozu or Ichi it is just continually pushing the audience down a road of general insanity. In fact this is easily Miike's most deranged movie in that he embraces the sheer magic of the subject so wholeheartedly.<br /><br />Well worth a watch just for the occasional flash of Gogo arse.

One of director Miike Takashi's very best. It's so good it's difficult to put into words. At nearly fifteen years older than the target audience it thrilled me from beginning to end.<br /><br />It recalls similar children's films from the 1980s in the sense that (unlike today) those films weren't afraid to scare - there's a lot of nasty detail here that I initially found jarring but soon realised it's nothing different to what I grew up on. The film is a compilation of '80s kid's films conventions. You name it, it's there: a young boy hero thrust from his own unhappy/dysfunctional world into another, inhabited by mythical and mystical goblins; a quest to save both worlds from an evil force; a beautiful heroine he has a crush on; a sadistic henchwoman (Go-Go Yubari from Kill Bill Vol. 1); a lead villain who draws his evil power from something everyone in the world can relate to. But all these genre conventions are given a fresh spin and added depth.<br /><br />One of the IMDb reviews begins "Where was this film when I was a kid?" and it's a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. Even while watching it I lamented the fact that I hadn't grown up on it; that it wasn't a part of my childhood like Labyrinth, Masters Of The Universe and, to a much lesser extent, The Neverending Story. Those films, and others like The Goonies are recalled but never copied - Miike relentlessly offering us a new take on things.<br /><br />Poor CGI is a staple of many of his films, sometimes due to budgetary limitations but just as frequently an artistic choice - a desire to present things in an outlandish way. Here the CGI is mostly average, solely due to budgetary limitations, but nevertheless he does a fantastic job of putting on a spectacle. The CG effects combine with traditional puppets, animatronics and truly extraordinary make-up to create a world filled with rich characters (and characterisation) that frequently borders on the visionary.<br /><br />This ranks as one of the greatest children's films ever made. Not for younger or more sensitive kids though.<br /><br />Just jaw-droppingly wonderful. See it for yourselves and if you think your kids can handle/appreciate it then show it to them. Let them grow up on The Great Yokai War as some small compensation for the fact you couldn't.

Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!

Wow! So much fun! Probably a bit much for normal American kids, and really it's a stretch to call this a kid's film, this movie reminded me a quite a bit of Time Bandits - very Terry Gilliam all the way through. While the overall narrative is pretty much straight forward, Miike still throws in A LOT of surreal and Bunuel-esquire moments. The whole first act violently juxtaposes from scene to scene the normal family life of the main kid/hero, with the spirit world and the evil than is ensuing therein. And while the ending does have a bit of an ambiguous aspect that are common of Miike's work, the layers of meaning and metaphor, particularly the anti-war / anti-revenge message of human folly, is pretty damn poignant. As manic and imaginatively fun as other great Miike films, only instead of over the top torture and gore, he gives us an endless amount of monsters and yokai from Japanese folk-lore creatively conceived via CG and puppetry wrapped into an imaginative multi-faceted adventure. F'n rad, and one of Miike's best!

This film is a bit reminiscent of the German film, THE NEVERENDING STORY because a child is magically transported to a strange land in order to be a hero. However, due to far superior modern technology, puppets and CGI are used to make an amazingly realistic looking world--one that will blow your socks off due to its realism and scope.<br /><br />I enjoyed this film, but boy was it a chore at first! Unfortunately, for most Westerners, this film is one you might give up on very quickly or dismiss it since everything in the film seems so odd. However, give it a chance. Don't think or try to understand everything you see--just allow the story to unfold and you will most likely enjoy the film.<br /><br />In many ways, this is exactly the sort of advice I'd give to adults who watch Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY because it is very similar and features tons of Yokai (Japanese mythical spirits). The big differences between the two is that THE GREAT YOKAI WAR is live-action and SPIRITED AWAY is much more child-friendly. While I do think THE GREAT YOKAI WAR was intended mostly as a kids' movie, in the USA, most parents would not want to show this to younger kids because it's so violent, scary and features some adult behaviors. So who is the audience in the West? Well, older kids and adults who appreciate foreign films with non-Western themes and composition. This is a rather narrow audience, indeed! <br /><br />While you are watching, look for all the strange little touches. In fact, you could watch the film dozens of times and notice different tiny things each time. A few of the funny references I liked were the comment about Gamera, the scene that came with the comment "KIDS: Don't Try This At Home" as well as the use of Kirin beer to allow a person to actually see the Yokai (hmm,...perhaps that scene should have also contained this warning)! <br /><br />By the way, director Takashi Miike is a hard one to pin down stylistically, other than to say that none of his stories I've seen have seemed "normal". Some of his films are rather disgusting and disturbing and I hated them (especially AUDITION and ICHI THE KILLER)whereas some of them are magical and among the best films I've ever seen (THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS). One thing for sure, it's hard to watch one of his films and not have a strong reaction one way or the other.

Now, I have seen a lot of movies in my day, but out of every single one there have been a very select few that have been really good to me. And I'm a 19 year old man which is impressed by this movie directed towards a younger audience. This is a very underrated gem for those who watch foreign movies. Almost all the acting is believable, the graphics are decent (for which you won't even be caring about as you watch the movie. Trust me, bitching about the graphics would be a stupid thing to do), the story is well written and it's a movie that everyone can enjoy not just the kids.<br /><br />Here's basically what this movie made me to. It one, made me laugh...a lot, two, made me feel for the characters like you're suppose to, and three, it's a very uplifting story. By the end of this movie you will feel good. Sure, what anime out there hasn't featured some young kid turning into a great warrior and whatever to defeat some great evil. It's a formula that is used a lot. But, in this case it is forgivable because even though they use puppets for some characters and some average graphics you'd see 5 years ago, the appearance of it is not to be judged. It's very touching, the ending is original, and it keeps you into the movie like it is suppose to. If you however try comparing this to other movies like "The Never-ending Story" or whatever it will diverse your opinion. Watch it as it is and you will enjoy it.<br /><br />It has been a good long while since I've been impressed like this. The only other movie where I have gotten this feeling is when I saw TMNT way back when it came out. There is something about this movie I felt about TMNT that really made me love it. So don't over-analyze or take this movie too seriously, just enjoy it.

Miike makes a children's adventure film, not unlike The Neverending Story. It's actually one of my least favorite of the director's films. Even the worst Miike is better than a good many films, though, and The Great Yokai War has a lot in it that's worth recommending. It's at least as loud and obnoxious as most American kiddie flicks. I might think kids themselves would find a lot to like in it (the DVD includes an English dub), but, like all of Miike's films, it can tend to move very slowly. That means you've got kind of a weird unevenness, where sometimes there's a loud action sequence and the next scene will drag on forever as characters converse. The story itself isn't very good, either, and Miike's perpetual flaw of incoherency rears its ugly head. Most of what I liked came from the technical side of things. This has to be Miike's most expensive movie, and it looks fantastic. "Yokai" are Japanese spirits, and they come in all different, fantastical forms, and the costume designers, special effects crew, and everyone else involved in the designs just did an outstanding job. I've seen the 1968 film this one is supposedly based on (Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare), and the cheesy rubber-suit monsters you can find there have been transformed into more believable entities using state-of-the-art makeup and special effects. I especially liked the look of one of the bad guys (or girls, in this case), Agi, who sports dark eye shadow, a tight, white outfit, a white beehive hairdo and a whip. She's played, incidentally, by Chiaki Kuriyama, whom you might remember as Lucy Liu's teenage henchgirl in Kill Bill: Vol. 1. The hero of the film is played by Ryunosuke Kamiki, who provided voices for Miyazaki's Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle.

A lot people get hung up on this films tag as a "children's film", and that it certainly is, though it is one made for adults. Takashi Miike uses the fantasy genre, particularly, the children's fantasy genre, as a springboard into the wild territory that is the Great Yokai War.<br /><br />The setup is simple a boy is selected to play the "hero" in this years annual festival, only to discover his role is much more real than he could have imagined. What follows is a hallucinatory, grotesque, whimsical, and often funny journey through the world of Japanese folklore, but wait there's also an evil Villain on the lose who wants to destroy the world. However, the villain here, is not a mere demon, it is the demon-spirit of the accumulated resentment of those things which humans "use" and "discard". Usuing a chamber made out of pure liquid hate/resentment, the villain transforms the vibrant colorful Yokai spirits into soulless ten foot tall makeshift robots which chainsaw for arms and eyes like burning coals(those whove played the video game, Sonic The Hedghog, might remember a certain Dr. Robotnik performing similar procedures to the cute and cuddly's who Sonic had to then "liberate").<br /><br />The hero in this film is actually the least interesting character, essentially playing the straight man, in a world gone suddenly mad. Though he does go through the typical heroes trials he more often than not cowers, as do many of the Yokia themselves, who seem truly defenseless against the murderous robots, some spirits being umbrellas with eyes, talking walls, or creatures whose soul purpose in life is to count beans...of course in this magical world of Miike's Yokai war even beans take a magical power when one believes in them.<br /><br />In several ways this film subverts the normal conventions of children's fantasy, as few, if any, of the characters are heroic, their victory being a combination of happenstance, almost arbitrary faith, and a desire to party. The Yokai spirits, only rally together and lay siege the villains hideout, after they mistake the end of the world invasion of Earth for a great Yokai festival, and even then only to dance and party. Also the film ends not with the usual celebratory all's well that ends well fantasy ending, but with a final scene, showing our hero years older, with an adult job, now unable to see the Yokai spirits of his youth, who then despondently turn to the villain, who being a spirit can never really die. This ending, with it's Yokai spirit who is the spitting image of Pokemon's Pikachu, warns us not just of leaving behind our childhood selves, but of the horrors of over-consumption. The villain is resentment caused when humans no longer have reverence for the world and the objects around them(in Japanese folklore nearly every object has some kind of spirit), and so when they are used and discarded as we in consumer societies do without reverence, they become soulless vengeful machines, not unlike those seen in modern video games, suggesting that though our imaginations and myths do not ever really die, but can become deformed.<br /><br />This is one of the first scripts Miike has contributed to, and I believe it shows, as there's a tightness conceptually that sometimes gets swept under the rug by his exuberance for visual playfulness. Though I've focused mostly on the story (since lots of users here seem to write it off), I do want to say that visually it's a kaleidescope of CGI, stop animation, costume, and live puppetry, that works remarkably well. There's a dreamlike quality to a lot of the film, and the Miyazaki comparisons are warranted, as are the NeverEnding Story and Labrynth comparisons, though this film is sharper and more adult than either. The Yokai are beaten, brutalized, and turned into machines of living hate, who I believe even kill a few humans, a deformed aborted calf with a mans face is born and dies in the films grotesque opening, while a sexual undercurrent, the women with the long neck licking the face of our boy hero, or another characters persistent memory of touching the thigh of a young scantily clad water spirit as a boy, seem to linger a bit too long for most western tastes, especially when considering this is a "children's film". However these are slight enough to catch adult attentions while minor enough, not to traumatize any children to bad. Grims fairy tales, before revisions, did much worse, far more often.<br /><br />All and all this is one of Miikes most accessible and engaging ventures yet, with enough visual drama and great performances(the Yokai spirits have a humanism and an absurd humor to them, thats laugh out loud funny at times) to appeal to audiences of all ages, and a steady conceptual undercurrent strong enough to draw in an adult audience who have presumably brought their children or else come out of a sense of nostalgia for the long lost fantasy films of their youth. The latter group the film seems to address the most fervently asking that they not just continue passive consumption of the world around them, but show reverence to those spirits within them which seemed so much closer to reality in childhood. Another beautiful, funny, and truly original film from a thrilling director who hasn't come close to his apex. Instant classic.

What a strangely wonderful, if sometimes slight and bulky, big-budget fantasy this is. Takashi Miike had already proved, by the time he got to The Great Yokhai War, that he could dip into other films aside from his supposed niche of the crime/yakuza genre (Visitor Q and Andromedia showed this, the former great the latter lesser). But here Miike, in his first and only co-screen writing credit no less, proves that he can deliver the goods on a post-modern soup of mythical fantasy conventions, and with it boatload of CGI, creature-effects and make-up, and an epic battle that is more like a "festival" than something out of Lord of the Rings. The comparisons can be made far and wide, to be sure, and the most obvious to jump on would be Miyazaki, for the seemingly unique mixture of kids-as-big-heroes, power-hungry sorcerers looking for the energy of the earth as the main source, machinery as the greatest evil, and many bizarrely defined, flamboyantly designed creatures (or Yokai of the title). But there can also be comparisons made to Star Wars, especially to the Gungan battle in TPM, and to the whole power-play between good and evil with similar forces. Or to anime like Samurai 7. Or, of course, to Henson's films. And through all of these comparisons, and even through the flaws or over-reaching moments, it's Miike all the way with the sensibilities of effects and characters. <br /><br />Here, Ryunosuke Kamiki plays Tadashi, the prototypical kid who starts out sort of gullible and sensitive to things in the world, but will become the hero in a world going into darkness. The darkness is from an evil sorcerer, who gets his energy from all of the rage and wretched vibes in the human world, and who is also starting to put to death the spirits and other creatures, the Yokhai, into a fire that sends them into gigantic robots that have only one mission- to destroy and kill anything in their paths. Tadashi gets as pumped up to fight Sato the sorcerer as the Yokai once Sato's main minion and cohort, Agi (Kill Bill's Chiaki Kuriyama, another great villainies) steals Tadashi's little furry companion, a Sunekosuri. Soon, things come to a head, in a climax that brings to mind many other fantasy films and stories, but can only be contained, up to a point, by Miike and his crew. I would probably recommend The Great Yokai War for kids, but in the forward note that it's not some watered down fantasy in American circles. This has creatures galore, including a one-eyed umbrella stand, and a walking, talking wall, not to mention a turtle, a fire serpent, and a woman who became cursed by Sato. So the variety is on high on that end, and one might almost feel like the creatures and effects- which grows to unfathomable heights when the "festival" hits with the Yokai reaching hundreds of miles in scope. But there's also a sense of fantasy being strong in both the light and the dark, and Sunekosuri becomes perhaps the greatest emotional tool at Miike's disposal (and not just because it's cuteness squared); where else to get an audience riled up than over a little furry ball of fury, who ends up in a tragic battle with Tadashi in robot form? <br /><br />Yet through all of this, the sense of anarchy that can be found in the brightest spots of Miike's career is here as well, which distinguishes it from its animated, Muppet and sci-fi counterparts. There's the bizarre humor as usual, including a song dedicated to Akuzi beans at a crucial moment in the climax, and more than a few flights of fancy with the creatures and fight scenes (I loved, for example, the guy with the big blue head who has to make it smaller, or the anxious turtle-Yokai). The biggest danger with Miike's access to bigger special effects and computer wizardry, which he flirts with, is overkill on this end. He's got everything down, I'm sure, with storyboards, and he creates some memorable impressions with some compositions (one of them is when all is said and done, and Tadashi and the 'other' human character are in the middle of the Tokyo rubble in an overhead shot), but the CGI is sometimes a little unconvincing with the robots, and the interplay skirts on being TOO flamboyant, and some visuals, like the overlay of the Yokai spreading the word about the big festival on the map, just seem weak and pat. I almost wondered if Miike might dip into (bad) Spy Kids territory, quite frankly.<br /><br />But this liability aside, The Great Yokai War provides more than a share of excitement, goofy thrills, and innocent melodrama that came with many of the best childhood fantasies. It owes a lot to cinema, as well as traditional Japanese folklore, but the screws are always turning even in its most ludicrous and veeringly confusing beats. It's not the filmmaker at his very best, but working in experimentation in a commercial medium ends up working to his advantage. It's got a neat little message, and lots of cool adventure. 7.5/10

2005 Toronto Film Festival Report It is official; "Takashi Miike" is whacked.<br /><br />The annual midnight screening of the new "Takashi Miike" film, "The Big Spook War" or "The Great Yokai War" or "Yôkai daisensô". Call it what you will this is a fanatical ride.<br /><br />Colin Geddes, the fearless programmer stated this film was originally geared towards children in Japan. Think of "Lord of the Rings" or "Neverending Story" for Japan. After the screening I can understand where they were going with that, but damn this is "Takashi Miike" after all. He directed the '01 film "Ichi the Killer", when it screening at the festival barf bags were handed out at the screening. And no, that wasn't just a marketing ploy.<br /><br />Plot Summary: A young boy with a troubled home life becomes "chosen," and he stumbles into the middle of a Great Spirit war, where he meets a group of friendly spirits who become his companions through his journey.<br /><br />This is not really for kids, well not 'too' young. Certainly see them getting scared shitless with some of these spirits (even the friendly ones) on display. This is unlike anything I've seen in the movie theater before. A fantasy naturally, some very funny (but dark) material. You will not be bored can guarantee that. Will this ever hit North America? Doubtful.<br /><br />My rating = B

Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare (Yokai daisenso, 2005) a movie about "yokai" or traditional Japanese "monsters" of folklore. It is alternatively known as Big Monster War or as Ghosts on Parade.<br /><br />The yokai of the first installment include the teapot freak, kappa water imp, a living 'brella, a woman whose sheeks can grow extremely gigantic, a woman with a second face on the back of her head, a dwarf priest with an enormous gourd-like wrist, & so on.<br /><br />These sorts of whimsical monsters derive not only from fairy lore, but from a type of summer entertainment of the Tokugawa Era, comparable to today's Halloween haunted houses, or the "freak shows" of yesteryear but with exclusively phony freaks. Ghosts & goldfish monsters & dancing one-headed umbrellas were trumped up to create "chills" during the hot summers. The fatcheek woman & such were recreated by tricks or illusions, based on monsters depicted in medieval scrolls; & if their design for the movie is a bit simple & hoky, this makes them all the more representative of what historically was recreated for summer chills.<br /><br />These rather endearing monsters have to face off & destroy an ancient Babylonian vampire demon who has come to Japan & disguised himself as a samurai lord. Despite that some of the Japanese apparitions are a bit goofy, & too many of the costumes scarsely more than masks without even moving lips as they speak, it is all played very poker-faced & is very charming. It has some beautiful cinematography, much as would be provided in a CGI film of the same decade. Viewed in the right mood or with the right friends, it is exciting, moving & touching.<br /><br />Yoshiyuki Kuroda also directed the famed Lone Wolf & Cub: White Heaven & Hell (1974) &and was the special FX director for the excellent Daimajin trilogy. The Yokai Monsters series is not the equal of Majin at its best, but the Yokai are nevertheless great fun. The first miike movie which is the most child-oriented of his family films, with the GOZU & IZOO consecutively more serious though none too severe for young viewers.

"Yokai Daisenso" is a children's film by Takashi Miike, but as you might expect, it's probably a bit too dark & scary for younger ones. However, older children may well eat this up, that is, if you play it dubbed in English.<br /><br />The story is that of a young boy, who has moved with his mother to the country, to live with his grandfather, after a divorce. During a village festival the boy is chosen as a "Kirin rider", a great honor, but with that honor comes much danger and adventure, of course.<br /><br />Meanwhile, evil doings are at hand as a woman in a white mini skirt, go-go boots & a beehive hair-do, teams up with an evil Yokai to turn people's resentments and discarded items against them. And this evil has manifested itself as a flying city in the form of a monster that heads for the City of Rage itself, Tokyo. One quite funny scene has two derelicts watching the monster fly over the city...says one, "Oh, it's only Gamera". <br /><br />The young boy has befriended Yokai, which are monsters of a kind, mostly benign, that have isolated themselves away from humans, and all the Yokai in Japan band together to fight the evil.<br /><br />In many ways Miike & crew have taken the late 60's/early 70's Yokai films and turned them into a modern action adventure film for (older) kids that also combines some strange mechanical monsters that made me think of "Transformers". The look and feel of the film is great, the effects are entertaining, and some of the humor will just sail right over kid's heads, but still, older ones might enjoy it. As for adults, there's not much here not to like, if you're a fan of Japanese monster movies you'll enjoy the heck out of this.<br /><br />Cool & fun stuff, kind of dark at times but perhaps that's just Miike..and what a wild ride. 8 out of 10.

Takashi Miike is one of my favorite directors and I was worried about him doing a kids film, because I would hate to see him depart from his films I came to love: Visitor Q, Gozu, Izo, Ichi the killer and Black Socioty Trilogy. Lately he seems to be exploring new territory and I think he's succeeding. Still this was the first of his films I'd seen him take that direction, so I was nervous. Of coarse I bought it without seeing it and was glad I did.<br /><br />Great Yokai War is a perfect kids film and adults should like it too. The whole film reminded me so much of the movies I loved as a child: Neverending story, Labyrinth, Return to Oz, etc. I enjoyed those films because they didn't treat kids like they're stupid and this one doesn't either. The dark underlying morals are there, but, it's also as silly as any kids film should be. I personally wasn't bothered by the CGI and prosthetics. I feel like they fit well and don't think kids will notice.<br /><br />If you are a die hard Takashi Miike fan, you may not like this one. But, I suggest giving it a shot. It proves that Miike is as diverse and talented as I suspected he is. He also continues to make his signature Miike films outside of these ones, which is very reassuring.<br /><br />To those people that are new to Takashi Miike and want something light hearted or dramatic like this one, I suggest these other Miike films: 'Zebraman' 'The Happiness of the Katakuris' 'Sabu' and 'The Bird People in China.' <br /><br />Good job Takashi Miike! 8/10 stars.

I just finished watching this movie and I must say that I was so impressed.Everything about it was superb. The acting the characters, the story. A believable child who grew into brave, always willing to help others. His mum must be proud. I could not take my eyes off this film for fear of missing something. It is the prefect fable/tale with morals, cute and scary sprites and 'monsters' but nevertheless heartwarming folk. A child poked and bullied at school who becomes a hero. Picked to be a rider at the local village festival and a journey to the Goblin Mountain where he discovers the Yokai, who are amazing creations that Brian Froud would be proud of. And the evil Kato and his off sider who definitely needed a hug. These evil people capture the Yokai and throw them into a red pit along with unwanted objects, like motorbikes and other mechanical things and these meld into one horribly violent robotic monsters whose only job is to kill. Takashi a young boy is the one to become their saviour, alongside a red man/dragon a turtle man and a River Princess as well as a cute little creature that, if it had been America they could have turned it into a cuddly toy and sold it at all good toy stores. The lines are good especially the Don't try this at home kids and other gems that bring a smile to your lips. Suspend belief and watch this with a child or on your own and enjoy! Though I must admit that the end was a wee bit sad. And not necessarily so. Cheers Furdion

The only reason I'm giving this a 9 is that the other kid actors who played Tadashi's tormentors were not up to the job. I presume they were just kids who happened to be the right age and handy, but they were not well coached, and their scenes were a minor annoyance. <br /><br />I say not to judge this by U.S. standards because it's full of ambiguities and the kinds of equivocations that Japanese culture readily embraces, and is not beholden to the black-hat/ white-hat moral constraints U.S. kids' films are routinely subjected to. For example, there is a preciously funny moment when Tadashi's small band of yokai companions finds themselves let down and abandoned by the other yokai, and Shojo--the avuncular Kirin herald--does what many a stressed-out Japanese adult would do. Hint: this would not happen in a Disney film. This picture also has the best product placement for beer you will ever see in a kids' movie. <br /><br />Early on, there's a moment where a school teacher smacks a couple of bullies on the head with her attendance book. There was a TV commercial in Japan a couple years before this movie came out. It was a stop-motion clay animation about a kid who's depressed and playing guitar and singing the blues in his room. His mother yells at him from downstairs to shut up. Then, someone gives him a candy bar and he cheers up and sings a happy tune, but his mother comes in and tells him to shut up again and gives him a dope slap that leaves a dent in his forehead. I mention this commercial, because it was considered funny, and I didn't hear any objections to it while I was there. There is a lot more bloodshed and physical cruelty on screen in "The Great Yokai War" than one would find in a Disney movie. As a parent, if this were a U.S. film, I would be up in arms about such things, although not necessarily the moral lessons drawn at the end of the picture, which, of course, are also not black and white. Since it's a Japanese movie, I accept that those cultural norms allow for imagery that would not get past the standards and practices cops in a U.S. production. However, I'd probably be a little uneasy taking young kids to see it without giving them some sort of pre-show briefing and/or post-show debriefing about the violence and other off- color stuff, or I'd wait till they're older to show it to them.

This is a movie that has a lot of things that only Japanese people can understand. Even well translated, there are some things that are obviously private jokes or regional symbolism. My guess is that it tried to send a message of some sort, but that just got wasted on me.<br /><br />What I felt that is basically this is a mediocre movie with nice special effects. Some kid becomes "The one" and in the end has almost no relevance to a yokai war that makes no sense whatsoever anyway. It would have been nice to understand what the hell they were talking about, but between the Azumi bean washing yokai and the one that looks like a big tongued umbrella (Rihanna eat your heart out!) I couldn't really discern the plot.<br /><br />Bottom line: nice visuals, the kid screams a lot, the river princess is terrible cute and the rest is crap.

There are many police dramas doing the rounds. I am not sure why. It's probably to do with the old basic theme of good versus evil.<br /><br />This film has a documentary style as we follow the difficult initiation of Anne, a raw recruit, into a police squad stationed in the Baltic area. No attempt is made to glamorise the police. They are truly down to earth, harsh at times and unforgiving, Anne on the other hand has a soft heart perhaps a little more understanding of the human condition. Against all rules she sometimes holds back incriminating information found on her strip searches and other investigations.<br /><br />This is not a pleasant film. Not one to relax you. There is not much feeling of optimism in it. The police seem to be involved in a losing battle. Tomorrow there will be more bashings, more murders, more family break-ups, and more distressed children. Let's face it. This is the world we live in.<br /><br />As days go by Anne becomes more intimately involved with the police and with the families they are investigating. The only real warmth in the film is that provided by the character Benny, a 12 year old from a broken family. Anne has her own way of patching things up. She turns a blind eye to Benny's shoplifting and tries to help him as best she can. I was surprised though that she went so far as to seduce Benny's father. It set me wondering if it was in consideration of the father or her own needs. After all, the film makes it clear that she was desperately in need of a partner and loving children.<br /><br />Well cast but not my idea of an evening's entertainment,

Wow! I have seen so many bad low budget films lately, but this one is great. The very realistic portrayal of police life in a city on the East German coast is a strong contrast to other crime movies or series. I loved the main actress and the absolute rejection of any prevalent cliché about the police. This film is realistic like a documentation and entertaining like a drama at the same time. A perfect tradeoff!

i would never have thought that it would be possible to make such an impressive movie without any music. but it is. just the pictures. watch out for that picture: anne talking with that little boy benny 'bout the soul. really strong. might make you feel different.

The simple hand camera both gives some almost documentary feeling to this film, and also relates to the dogma films.<br /><br />Did you ever get bored of those hollywood-style cop flicks with brawny guys who get assignments james bond would be envious of? Fed up with the married-living-single cop, the divorced-but-family-man, the personified doughnut and the tough hunter? Ever wondered how the real police work is like?<br /><br />Well, for germany, this film shows you. Set in the north between west germany and east germany, former DDR, an laid off post office clerk starts her job, fresh from policeschool. She quickly finds her way around the usual customers, and becomes accustomed to life as a policewoman... but this is not much fun.<br /><br />Other german crime films like Derrick, Der Alte et cetera have dignified officers talking calmly with suspects. These cops here have to deal with the lowest on the social ladder. Good dialogue and realism makes this an interesting view, even more if you know that part of germany a bit.

This movie is a very realistic view of a police squad in a small german town as seen through the eyes of a woman recruit. She brings her way of dealing with the law, which means more than simple convictions. The strong performance of the main character, supported by good dialogues makes this flick very enjoyable.

This 1984 version of the Dickens' classic `A Christmas Carol,' directed by Clive Donner, stars George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. By this time around, the challenge for the filmmaker was to take such familiar material and make it seem fresh and new again; and, happily to say, with this film Donner not only met the challenge but surpassed any expectations anyone might have had for it. He tells the story with precision and an eye to detail, and extracts performances from his actors that are nothing less than superlative, especially Scott. One could argue that the definitive portrayal of Scrooge-- one of the best known characters in literary fiction, ever-- was created by Alastair Sim in the 1951 film; but I think with his performance here, Scott has now achieved that distinction. There is such a purity and honesty in his Scrooge that it becomes difficult to even consider anyone else in the role once you've seen Scott do it; simply put, he IS Scrooge. And what a tribute it is to such a gifted actor; to be able to take such a well known figure and make it so uniquely his own is quite miraculous. It is truly a joy to see an actor ply his trade so well, to be able to make a character so real, from every word he utters down to the finest expression of his face, and to make it all ring so true. It's a study in perfection.<br /><br />The other members of the cast are splendid as well, but then again they have to be in order to maintain the integrity of Scott's performance; and they do. Frank Finlay is the Ghost of Jacob Marley; a notable turn, though not as memorable, perhaps, as the one by Alec Guinness (as Marley) in the film, `Scrooge.' Angela Pleasence is a welcome visage as the Spirit of Christmas Past; Edward Woodward, grand and boisterous, and altogether convincing as the Spirit of Christmas Present; and Michael Carter, grim and menacing as the Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come.<br /><br />David Warner hits just the right mark with his Bob Cratchit, bringing a sincerity to the role that measures up well to the standard of quality set by Scott's Scrooge, and Susannah York fares just as well as Mrs. Cratchit. The real gem to be found here, though, is the performance of young Anthony Walters as Tiny Tim; it's heartfelt without ever becoming maudlin, and simply one of the best interpretations-- and the most real-- ever presented on film.<br /><br />The excellent supporting cast includes Roger Rees (Fred Holywell, and also the narrator of the film), Caroline Langrishe (Janet Holywell), Lucy Gutteridge (Belle), Michael Gough (Mr. Poole) and Joanne Whalley (Fan). A flawless presentation, this version of `A Christmas Carol' sets the standard against which all others must be gauged; no matter how many versions you may have seen, watching this one is like seeing it for the first time ever. And forever after, whenever you think of Scrooge, the image your mind will conjure up will be that of George C. Scott. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying experience, this film demands a place in the annual schedule of the holiday festivities of every home. I rate this one 10/10.

Far richer in texture and character than even the classics from the 30's and 50's. George C. Scott was born to be Scrooge, just as he was born to be Patton. Mr. Scott will be known as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. The character of Scrooge as played by Mr. Scott seemed to jump off the screen. Scott as Scrooge brought an richer, more robust, yet a more deeply moving Scrooge to the screen than any of his predecessors in the role of the meanest man in 18th century London. Mr. Scott seemed to bring Scrooge to a more personal, understandable yet highly conflicted level; his role was acted with the great authority Scott always bring to the screen: yet his usual bellicose voice would sometimes be brought to a whisper, almost as a soliloquy, as he would berate the Christmas holiday in one breath, yet reveal his own human frailty in his next line. He could portray the sour and crusty Scrooge, and a misunderstood, sympathetic Scrooge all in the same scene.<br /><br />Truly a remarkable performance by a giant of his generation.

So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.<br /><br />George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.<br /><br />The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.<br /><br />You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.<br /><br />10 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.

I know many people have a special fondness for the Alistair Sim version of Dickens' story, but for me, this 1984 version is the one to beat. My wife and I own a copy of this film on VHS, and we watch it together every Christmas Eve. I often remark that we could watch it on Halloween too, because it's a very creepy ghost story.<br /><br />Scott--typecast as Scrooge--is shudderingly mean and nasty, making his transformation all the more miraculous and moving. I think it's up there with his performance in Patton. The spirits are all effective, each one creepier than the last. Watching the dark, floating, skeletal form of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come sends shivers down my spine every year. And what a supporting cast! David Warner, in particular, is in top form as Bob Cratchit, as is Susannah York as his wife. <br /><br />I seem to recall that this version sticks closer to the original story than most others--but I may be mistaken, as it's been several years since I read it. Regardless, this is a terrific Christmas classic.

The setting and actors make this television movie for me the best rendition of Dickens' classic tale. George C. Scott is very believable as is the rest of the cast. His Scrooge oozes with nastiness until the very end of the movie. Then his character changes to one who is truly repentant. The 19th Century English town chosen for the setting creates an ambiance that is fitting to Dickens and adds to the plausibility of this film. It is a movie I watch every Christmas along with the real Grinch and It's A Wonderful Life.

"Telefilms" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.<br /><br />George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone.

This is simply one of the finest renditions of Dicken's classic tale. The script very accurately follows the story originally penned by Dickens, and captures a perfect balance between a film atmosphere and a play atmosphere. Viewers fond of either format will find enough of the story rooted in their presentation style of choice.<br /><br />George C. Scott brings a delightfully realistic approach to the character of Scrooge, and is very convincing in the character development instigated by the visits of the ghosts. I found that he was able to win me over to the point where I sympathized with the old miser, something rarely done in other versions. The superb job done by the supporting actors add greatly to this production, which is simply the most enjoyable of all the Christmas Carol versions I have seen.

and possibly closest to the Dickens story line. Although I find the young Ebenezer hard to watch (who's idea was that period hair, surely they could have done better than that!), Scott does an incredible job as Scrooge. His delivery of some of the lines from Dickens finally brought it to life for me. Edward Woodward is everything we expect and more of the Ghost of Christmas present. I find G.C. Scott's Scrooge much more of a believable miser than the more current version done by Patrick Stewart. The scene Christmas Morning when Scrooge realizes he hasn't 'missed it', is enough to convince one that Scott knows how to act versus overact. He's phenomenal here. Nearly the entire cast is incredible. The Tiny Tim in this version of The Christmas Carol is a little tough to look at, almost too sweet. Still the music and the scenery make this a must watch every holiday. Enjoy!

As the celebration of Christmas has evolved through the years, whether one concentrates on the religious or the secular traditions, it is a time when people are supposed to behave a little better to each other. That has somehow slipped past one Ebenezer Scrooge, merchant and money lender in 19th century London.<br /><br />As his nephew points out to his uncle, he doesn't keep Christmas in any way because Scrooge feels the whole thing is humbug. The humanity in Scrooge was driven out long ago, he's a hard case, a whole lot like his 20th Century counterpart, Mr. Potter of Bedford Falls, New York.<br /><br />But as Charles Dickens told this tale, redemption is not too late for any of us and a lonely ghost and three spirits visit Scrooge and show him how.<br /><br />A Christmas Carol is such a timeless holiday classic that we sometimes forget that it is as much a social commentary of 19th century Great Britain as Oliver Twist was. The characters in this film are middle and lower class. The Cratchits are a couple of rungs above the street people in Oliver Twist, but they are having to struggle to stay up there. Still love and happiness radiate their home, no thanks to the guy Bob Cratchit works for. <br /><br />Like George Bailey who did a whole lot of good in his life and just had to be reminded how much, Ebenezer Scrooge needed a wake up call as to the potentiality he still had for doing some good in this old world.<br /><br />Patrick Stewart in his live performances and filmed play has pretty much taken over the part of Scrooge. But George C. Scott captures the old miser pretty well in this film. The meanness of him, but with a trace of sadness that makes us root for him to change. Scott joins a fine tradition of people like Reginald Owen and Alastair Sim who've both done great interpretations of Scrooge.<br /><br />Among the supporting roles I particularly enjoyed David Warner as Bob Cratchit and Edward Woodward as a hearty and stern spirit of Christmas present. <br /><br />According to IMDb this is one of 32 versions of A Christmas Carol made that they have archived and it is one of the best.

This story is told and retold and continues to be retold in every possibly way imagine. The immortal Charles Dicken's story has been recreated in every possible way imagine. I admit I have not seen the classic Alistair Sim version and I'm sure someday I will but I would be blown away if it touched even close to this amazing eighties version. I believe that if Dickens himself had created his story for film this would be it.<br /><br />The story is well known, I won't go into much detail because everyone has seen it in one form or another. A rich, stingy, mean, old man is visited by the Ghost of his former partner and warned about his mean ways. In order to straighten him out he is visited by three spirits, each which show him a different perspective of his life and the people he is involved with, past, present and future. Finally in seeing all this before him he realizes the error of his ways in a big way and attempts retribution for all the wrong he has done.<br /><br />George C. Scott is absolutely, undeniably perfect for this role. He takes hold of the Ebeneezer Scrooge role and makes it his own and creates an incredible character. He is not just a mean old man, but someone who has been effected by certain situations in his life that has made him bitter and angry at the world. There is compassion within him but he holds it below everything else and is very self involved. Scott delivers the role of perfection when it comes to Scrooge.<br /><br />Not only does the leading role make this film but everything else fits into place. This is a grand epic of Victorian England, Dickens England is recreated before our very eyes, the sights and the sounds and you can almost feel the breeze in your face and the smells of the market. Director Clive Donner brilliantly recreates this scene and leaves nothing to the imagination. I could watch this film on mute and be dazzled by the scenery. It's not spectacular scenery per se but it's real. The film takes us from the high class traders market to the very dismal pits of poverty and everything in between.<br /><br />The rest of the cast fits into their roles and brings their literary counterparts to life. Bob Cratchitt, played by David Warner and his entire family including and especially the young Tiny Tim played by Anthony Walters were wonderful. The Ghosts each had their own distinct personality and added to the dark mood of this story. A Christmas Carol is not a light story. Dickens wrote this story for a dark period in England's life and it's one of the few Christmas tales that is really dark, almost scary, and it has to be scary in order to scare a man who has been a miser for so many years into turning around. The dark feel to the story is captured in this film and is downright frightening and yet the end lifts your spirits and captures Christmas miracles. The score to this film is also something to be mentioned as it is epic and grand and beautiful to listen to whether it's the actual score or the Christmas music, everything fits together. Apparently Christmas movies are my favorite because I insist everyone see this Christmas Carol above all others. 10/10

You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.<br /><br />What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.<br /><br />George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.<br /><br />Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, "I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?", we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.<br /><br />Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.<br /><br />And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, "it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child" he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.<br /><br />Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears.

I saw a lot films about Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. But this one is the best of all! There is an atmosphere which is exactly the same as in the book. The actors (George C. Scott and others) are great! Unfortunately, you can't often watch the film in Germany and Switzerland.

This is the best film version of Dicken's classic tale. I've seen it over and over on VHS, and recently acquired the DVD version, which is formatted for TV (not wide-screen). What I find interesting about this teleplay is the cast of English actors who are now recognizable since many have appeared in other films/shows in North America since 1984. My biggest surprise is Edward Woodward, "the Equalizer", as the Ghost of Christmas Present.

I first saw this version of "A Christmas Carol" when it first appeared on television. I actually anticipated seeing the film when it was advertised and it more than lived up to my expectations. I have now purchased the DVD and plan to watch it every year. With the exception of "It's A Wonderful Life" I consider this version of "A Christmas Carol" one of the best Christmas movies ever made. George C. Scott is excellent and a superb cast led by Roger Rees surrounds him! Scott proves once again that he is one of finest actors of our time. Scott has the artistic talent and acting ability to play any role and keep the character unique to himself. How can someone be remembered as both Patton and Scrooge? Scott does so easily. The direction is marvelous with the fine sets, costumes and music that give the movie a special feeling of the time, place and era depicted. You will simply love this movie and will place it among your favorites to watch during the holiday season.

OK. I'm biased. I live near Shrewsbury in England, where this wonderful movie was filmed. It still looks the same now. I remember them filming here quite vividly, and the fake snow on the streets for days on end. Often, when I'm walking through Shrewsbury I see a street or a house and it will remind me of this film.<br /><br />George C. Scott's Scrooge is a more realistic character than many of the other screen versions. His physical appearance isn't the typical miser. Scott's is big and imposing. A man who finds those smaller than himself to be inferior.<br /><br />We all know the story and the quotes. The book is one of the most cherished works in the English language. And I don't believe there are many cynics who would say that people aren't capable of change and redemption. This film version portrays all of that quite beautifully. George C. Scott may be American but he plays the part of the English miser with wonderful skill.<br /><br />I love this movie. If you haven't seen this version I would strongly urge that you do. It's usually available for a very small amount of money... or are you too mean?

Okay, there are a ton of reviews here, what can I possibly add?<br /><br />I will try anyway. <br /><br />The reason this is my favorite Scrooge is because of EVERYthing. The sets, outdoor locations, costumes are so beautiful and authentic. The music is sweet. The supporting cast is very well done. One of my favorites is the narrator & nephew, played by Roger Rees. His understated sincerity is touching and his voice is the sound of Christmas to me. David Warner is also a totally believable Bob Cratchit. His is a difficult life, but he remains positive and dignified. <br /><br />The best part of course- is George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. Some have said his portrayal too gruff. I couldn't disagree more. His exchanges at the beginning while cold or harsh, weren't out of character. He is a terribly disillusioned man who's heart has been hardened by the vicissitudes of life and his own lust for wealth. <br /><br />During the flashbacks, it's obvious that he isn't all gruff. This is where we see that there is hope for him. If he was totally gone, his partner Marley would never have come for his sake in the first place. And after all, we are none of us past hoping. I think that is a HUGE part of what Dickens was trying to say. When Scrooge looks in on his dance at his employer's with Belle, you see him smile regretfully as he tells Belle in the flashback that he will go through life "with a grin on my face." Clive Donner was smart enough as the director to allow these moments on film. Sometimes they get left on the editing room floor.<br /><br />And finally, his conversion is so absolutely full of joy that it makes me cry tears of joy EVERY time I see it. His apology to his nephew Fred, so sincere, so moving, it is the spirit not only of Christmas, but of humanity itself. The joy he brings to Fred, to his wife are so apparent. And the line that gets me every time, "God forgive me for the time I've wasted." <br /><br />Bravi tutti!

Although George C. Scott is the only actor in this version of ACC without a British accent, he more than makes up for it with his over-the-top and larger-than-life interpretation of Ebenezer Scrooge.<br /><br />Particularly effective is when he confronts Bob Cratchit in his office at the movie's end. As Scott stands before a large window, sunlight casts a glowing mantle over him; all you can see is his silhouette. Augmented by Scott's voice, a ponderous growl, the effect is galvanizing...much like Marlon Brando's first scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. "The Horror," indeed! <br /><br />However, as they say, the very thing that works for you can also work against you. Because Scott displays such gleeful ferocity throughout the movie, it proves infectious. To put it another way, the "before" Scrooge is almost as charismatic as the "after," even though he really shouldn't be. It's what you might call the "Doctor Smith" effect, since Jonathan Harris used a very similar approach when playing that role and numerous other heavies (stage and screen alike).<br /><br />Actually, I myself don't consider Scott's glib rage a liability. But other "Christmas Carol" purists might. See the film and judge for yourselves.

When this initially aired in 1984, my wife and I taped it on our very first VHS recorder. I still have that aging tape, which I try to watch annually. It was the year my first child was born, and seeing A Christmas Carol in this incarnation brings back fond memories of happy times -- many hours of which were spent with this film playing in the background. I finally broke down this year and ordered a DVD, which prompted me to take a moment to write this brief reaction to the movie. Charles Dickens' story is captured in outstanding fashion here. George C. Scott is absolutely amazing and totally believable as Scrooge. The supporting cast is equally spectacular. This is, to my mind, a flawless production. Little details add much to the enjoyment. The game "similes" Scrooge's nephew and wife play with their party guests is a neat item. (I've since re-created it with my high school English students as a brief respite from class work!) Honestly, I can think of few ways to entertain myself over the holidays I enjoy more than indulging in this CBS production, which was originally sponsored by IBM. (Incidentally, it's fun to watch the old tape with the original IBM commercials ... which show just how much computers have evolved in 21 years. Amazing how things have changed!) Bottom line: A Christmas Carol is a timeless story, and this rendition is a timeless classic. Enjoy ... and God Bless Us, Every One!

Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories – a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.<br /><br />To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.<br /><br />Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).<br /><br />Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.<br /><br />But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy – and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need.

This version of the Charles Dickens novel features George C Scott as the Scrooge. Fine casting, especially the choice of Scott, who plays the role to the hilt..a fine cast supports him in the very good adaption. A Modern day holiday classic on a scale of one to ten..9

In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)<br /><br />First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!<br /><br />This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper! <br /><br />Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.<br /><br />The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!<br /><br />This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season.

I saw this movie in sixth grade around Christmas Time, and I was really excited about seeing it, and when I heard that George C. Scott was in it, I was really excited, because I really love George C. Scott! When me and my class were watching this movie, I was really into it, and when it was over, I was really impressed, I thought that it was totally fabulous! This is the best version of Charles Dickens' classic novel that I have seen so far! George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge is something else, I thought that he was the perfect choice, he was Scrooge, he is the definitive Scrooge! I've seen two different versions of A Christmas Carol, the other is the one with Patrick Stewart, but this is the better one! <br /><br />What it really great about this is the acting, I thought that the actors were fabulous, everyone was, the spirits, Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit, everyone, they could not have found anyone better than the ones they had doing the parts! But the best part of the movie was George C. Scott! When I saw him, I thought that he was the absolute best! He is the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge, I do not think that they could have found someone better! I don't think that they could have found anyone better to replace anyone in the movie! <br /><br />This movie is probably the definitive movie adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, and I really think that you will agree, you will think that this movie is fabulous! I am probably going to have to buy this movie on DVD, because I thought that it was totally fabulous! I totally recommend that you see this masterpiece! This is the best version of A Christmas Carol, period. <br /><br />10/10

*********Ten out of Ten Stars********* <br /><br />It's hard to believe this was a made for television movie. Just the phrase, "made of TV", makes me shudder. The production values for made for TV movies are almost always remarkably lower than production values for professional movie studios. That being said, this version of the "Christmas Carol" should have been released in theaters, because it IS that good. It's my personal favorite of all the "Christmas Carol" movies because every aspect of this production are of the highest quality. Yes, there are some minor on screen glitches with two of the ghosts that visit Scrooge, but there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have at least a couple of mistakes.<br /><br />Scott turns in a stellar performance as Scrooge, he's a pleasure to watch. In fact, I can't think of one performance in this film that shouldn't be applauded. The costuming, location shooting, and winter backdrop are mesmerizing. The musical score is endearing and heart warming. Add to that, solid directing, flawless cinematography, and faithful scripting; we have here what will one day be considered a holiday classic. It really hasn't been around long enough to be a classic, but mark my words, one day soon it will be. This film has turned into a yearly Christmas tradition in my home because it embodies the true meaning behind Christmas: Love, selflessness, and giving. In as selfish, greedy world, my family and I can lose ourselves in "The Christmas Carol", starring George C. Scott.

I enjoy all the versions of this story but this one is my all time favorite. George C.Scott gives a depth to the Scrooge character that the others do not give. The movie shows more about why he becomes so bitter. The changes in Scrooge appear gradually as he encounters the different ghosts and the incidents that they show him. <br /><br />This movie has the best Tiny Tim by far. He is the right age rather than being played by someone who is almost a teenager as in the other films. Anthony Walters still has all or most of his baby teeth. <br /><br />David Warner is wonderful as Bob Cratchit. He is such a versatile actor. He portrays a man who clearly loves his family. He plays the role with dignity neither as a wimpy man cowering under Scrooges'thumb but as a man who gracefully puts up with it because he has a family to provide for. Susannah York and the other actors do a fine job of bringing the characters to life. Edward Woodward is the best Ghost of Christmas Present I've ever seen. Most often he is played as a jolly Santa type character. In this he shows anger at Scrooges attitudes and really makes Scrooge reconsider. <br /><br />The costumes and the sets really bring the London of Dickens time to life. A wonderful movie.

I'm sure that most people already know the story-the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge gets a visit from three spirits (the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come) who highlight parts of his life in the hopes of saving his soul and changing his ways. Dickens' classic story in one form or another has stood the test of time to become a beloved holiday favorite.<br /><br />While I grew up watching the 1951 version starring Alastair Sims, and I believe that he is the definitive Scrooge, I have been impressed with this version, which was released when I was in high school. George C. Scott plays a convincing and mean Ebenezer Scrooge, and the actors playing the ghosts are rather frightening and menacing. David Warner is a good Bob Cratchit as well.<br /><br />This version is beautifully filmed, and uses more modern filming styles (for the 1980's) which make it more palatable for my children than the 1951 black and white version.<br /><br />This is a worthy adaptation of the story and is one that I watch almost every year at some point in the Christmas season.

Father of the Pride was the best new show to hit television since Family Guy. It was yet another masterpiece from the talented people at Dreamworks Animation. Like The Simpsons, the show centers around a nuclear family (of white lions, in this case). It also contains many memorable supporting characters including Roger the surly orangutan, Vincent the Italian-American flamingo, the eccentric white tigers Blake and Victoria, the faux patriotic Snout Brothers and Chutney the elephant. The other stars of the show are the Sigfreid and Roy. They are incredibly eccentric and do everything in a grandiose manner, making the most mundane activities entertaining. The combination of cute animal characters with very adult dialog and controversial issues (drugs, prejudice, etc) is the source of the program's brilliance.<br /><br />The blame for this show's failure lies with NBC. They opted to broadcast the episodes in no particular order (perhaps being influenced by which guest stars they could promote) rather than the more logical production order. Several times, the show was preempted for an extra half-hour of such dreck as The Biggest Loser (as if 60 minutes of that was not enough)! It is indeed an ill omen for the future of television as art if an original and daring show like this fails while Fear Factor and American Idol dominate.<br /><br />Luckily, the complete series was released on DVD and the show now has an opportunity to gain a larger following. 10/10

I had watched as much of the series as I could manage to watch on television, but unfortunately, started a job that got me working evenings. I managed to catch some recordings of it, at least... and, of course, purchased the recently released DVD of the complete series. Watching the DVD, you can see that the animation was a bit more crude at first, but they ironed out a fair number of the flaws after the pilot was done. The voices are well suited to the characters, and the writing is excellent. It's rather refreshing to see animation getting back to it's roots by reintroducing adult themes. Thing is, with the way society has come in the last century, you need to be a bit more blatant about it by today's standards in order to be recognised as an adult-oriented show. The characters have very realistic personalities and are placed in situations that parallel what we often face in real life. It's your typical sitcom in that regard, but the humor is more like what you'd expect from late night television like a talk show skit or Saturday Night Live... back when SNL was actually funny. Good job, Dreamworks. Perhaps you need to work with one of the more liberal networks to keep this series going... and also improve the marketing of merchandise for the series to help defray it's high costs. It's a challenge to do this for a cartoon of a mature nature though. Hmm...

"Father of the Pride " was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in "The Simple life ") I admit that are many similarities with this show and "The Simpsons" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .<br /><br />Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like "Mission Hill " a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame .

I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.<br /><br />It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...<br /><br />The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.<br /><br />This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.<br /><br />rating: 8/10

One word: suPURRRRb! I don't think I have see anything like this in a long time on network or cable television. Watching this show was like taking a breath of fresh air amid TV schedule filled with reality shows and boring re-runs. <br /><br />I have to say I had my reservations. After all, critics were almost unanimous in crying foul and downgrading the show. But when half an hour was over (by the way, thank you, NBC, for running a commercial-free show), I was left with the feeling of instant love, love at first glance, the true love that one feels in his guts. Everything about this show screamed EXCELLENCE.<br /><br />Graphics in this show were at least as good as Finding Nemo and Shrek. No small feat considering those movies took years to be developed.<br /><br />Cast was marvelous. I am partial to John Goodman's voice, but the rest of the team certainly were on par with John. Special mention: Lisa Kudrow's guest appearance. She was on top of the game creating neurotic, pudgy, and lovable panda with a Jewish streak in her. (Panda from Brooklyn? Only in this show.) <br /><br />Script was funny, with a lot of inside and adult jokes which were sharp, yet not tacky. A note for all parents: this is NOT for children. This show was never advertised as such, and there's a reason why it's set for 9PM, not 8PM. So if you'd like to complain about "objectionable context", save your breath. Adults deserve a comedy made just for them, and Father of the Pride is it. <br /><br />Not everything was perfect. I was a bit puzzled by Siegfried and Roy's characters. Do I sense "stereotype" when it comes to them? Yes, they are gay. Yes, they are flamboyant. Yes, they speak with German accents. But that's yesterday's news. Give us something new, something fresh, something funny. Putting the old jokes in a new show is definitely the wrong approach. I understand that the creators of this show wanted to use the "star power" that these guys have. That's fine by me. But please don't dwell on something everybody already knows by heart. Hopefully, the rest of the show is not going to play the same old record over and over. <br /><br />In general, the show is definitely a Must-See-TV. Funny, witty, with a few unexpected twists here and there -- there haven't been a comedy this good since Seinfeld. I am certainly looking forward to the next episode.

Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order!

I never saw it on TV but rented the DVD through Netflix as soon as I found that it was available. I had high expectations, and was not disappointed. It's funny, and the animation is excellent. That level of quality I would only have expected from feature films, so I'm surprised at some of the bad comments on it. Maybe the DVD release had improved animation? One bonus to the DVD is that it was fun to see both versions of the pilot. I'm an adult, and I really appreciate that it is for adults. It isn't only kids who like cute animated characters. It is nowhere near "raunchy" as some have claimed, but I can see where some parents wouldn't want their young children to see it. I'm very disappointed that it was cancelled. I wish they would produce more episodes. Or perhaps a movie.

At least for a half hour a week. I haven't been interested in anything on the big 3 networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) in years. All of the lions are interesting, although Larry can get annoying at times. I really like the Middle earth action figures they bring in with Hunter. Most of the other characters are interesting as well. The sideshow of Siegfried and Roy is entertaining at times, too. The animation is top notch, and definitely the best CG that has been done on a weekly TV show. Usually when they hire big names to star in a show, they're trying to hide a poor script or characters. Not entirely true in this show though, There's a couple characters that were weak and improved by the voice acting, but overall the characters stand on their own.<br /><br />This is definitely for 16 and up. There's nothing here that most kids haven't already heard before though, and most of the jokes would probably just fly right over their heads. It's definitely not as crude and edgy as South Park, but does bring some of the same "Bash everyone" feel to it. One example is that it makes fun of both Dick Cheney and Barbara Streisand at the same time in one episode. <br /><br />Father of the Pride and other Dreamworks productions like Shrek also feel like the spiritual successors of Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and Freakazoid. It's the same type of humor grown up. It may not be as witty as Spielberg's classic TV series, but it's still good.<br /><br />I hope that it finishes this season off well, and is renewed for future seasons. Otherwise I may never find a reason to watch the big 3 again.

PERHAPS in an attempt to find another "Hot Property" for adaptation, the Brothers Fleischer thought back to their highly successful foray into the world of the Newspaper Comic Strip with their production of 1933's POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer Studios/Paramount). Although it was a part of the BETTY BOOP Series, Miss B. only made a brief appearance in the short; leaving the rest as a pilot episode for the possible emergence of a full blown series.<br /><br />AS is now common knowledge, the gruff, squinty eyed, brawlin' seaman became perhaps the most successful cartoon series ever; outlasting and literally outliving the Fleischers and their Studio, lasting to this day.<br /><br />RETURNING to King Features for another try at luck was no doubt the reason for trying out the very popular HENRY Comic Strip character in a BETTY BOOP outing; objective being the seeking of another series. The reasoning then surely seemed sound. HENRY was a most popular feature in the Hearst Papers' line-up; appearing as both a Daily and on Sunday's Color Comics Supplement, PUCK, THE COMICS WEEKLY. You know, "What Fools These Mortals Be!" Remember that one, Schultz? IN viewing the chubby, little, bald boy Comic Strip 'Hero' and his on screen antics, both solo and in tandem with Miss Betty; we were pleasantly surprised in seeing just how well the character was handled. The story and Director Dave Fleischer both afforded a plethora of comic strip-like situations and sight gags that seemed most appropriate for the character of little Henry. These mostly silent vignettes were very important to the animated film in remaining faithful to the printed page; as the HENRY Feature was mostly done in a sort of 4 color 'mime'.<br /><br />IN the cartoon, titled BETTY BOOP WITH HENRY: THE FUNNIEST LIVING American (Fleischer Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1935), we see what is; basically being a one situational exercise; being punctuated with the usual array of Dave Fleischer's rapid fire, machine gun-like gags. In short, Henry spots a puppy in the window of Betty Boop's Pet Shop. It is a sort of love at first sight as Henry attempts to purchase the little pup dog with the only money he had, to coins in his pocket. He is in formed by Miss Boop that it would be $2.00 in depression era money to make the purchase. Tears appear as the little guy leaves dejectedly.<br /><br />BUT a reprieve is soon on the horizon as Betty asks the boy to mind the store, while she leaves on urgent business. In return for his services, Miss Betty promises him the little dog in return. Of course, they have a deal and Betty leaves.<br /><br />GETTING to the work of cleaning cages and feeding the livestock affords the opportunity for the Fleischer Crew to fire up a whole new string of gags; this time featuring bird seed, Henry's bald pate and push brooms. (But not all at once of course, Schultz!) Henry's enthusiasm for mass feeding of the store's avian population by first literally seeding his head soon leads to a mass defection of the birds; out of the store to the open street in a mass jail break.<br /><br />BETTY returns to this sight and expresses her disappointment and anger with Henry's temporary custodial care. All bets were off, no doggie for Henry. He begins to leave; dejectedly; but soon convinces the proprietress to give him another shot at fixing things up. His head covered with bird seed, he manages to corral all of the little feathered creatures; returning them to their pet store coop. Happily, the little fella leaves; but this time he has his own affectionate, little, face licking puppy.<br /><br />UNDOUBETLY this was a winning combination. We have the carefree, energy filled, free wheeling of the boy, the kindness of Betty and the emotions of the situation and doubtful outcome of the 'boy and his dog' situation. Max and Dave Fleischer had given us a sort of almost minor mini-masterpiece of a surreal comedy short.<br /><br />WE were quite surprised that no HENRY Series followed. Judging by the fairly faithful treatment of the character, it certainly could have been sustained for some time. At any rate, this teaming was in many ways the best of the Betty Boop try out pictures. Although the first, POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer/Paramount, 1933), was the most successful (and barely had any Betty Boop in it, save for a cameo as a carnival hula dancer); the HENRY Short was much better than the two following King Features "tryouts", BETTY BOOP AND THE LITTLE KING and BETTY BOOP AND LITTLE JIMMY, both 1936.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!!

This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.<br /><br />Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.<br /><br />Well here he does speak!<br /><br />He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.<br /><br />Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end.