Reviews (30)

A Powerful Take on a Continuing Controversy
This trilogy of stories is both powerful and thought provoking. The movie follows the stories of three women of different eras who are conflicted regarding their unplanned pregnancies. While fictional in form, in reality it reflects the changing views and policies toward abortion from the 1950's to the present era.

The setting of all three segments is in a single house. This masterful production/directorial technique seems to be symbolic for an issue which has always been controversial to many. As the house becomes more and more dilapidated over each segment, we also see that the right to abortion is becoming a compoundingly fragile right that could be taken away at any time. Instead of gaining strength over time, the volatile issue is subject to the demands of the political party in command.

The dynamics of the eras are reflected so realistically in each segment, that a viewer cannot help but to be actively drawn into the drama. The segments feature all-star casts including such heavy hitters as Demi Moore, Sissy Spacek, Cher, Anne Heche, and Jada Pinkett. Cher deserves special attention for both directing and acting in the excellent third segment.

Rather than pro-choice, I think the video challenges us to think, "What if there were no choice?" This is recommended viewing for women and men alike, and this movie will stay in your thoughts for a long time to come.

A picture is worth a thousand words...
This is an incredibly powerful film, and I agree with other reviewers that it solidly argues the pro-choice stance on abortion. Not only are the stories of women who choose abortions portrayed, but the story of a woman (Sissy Spacek) who decides that she could only live with herself if she keeps her baby is also featured. Part of me wants to recommend that only grown women with strong stomachs view this film (cold steel and substantial blood loss make me cringe) and part of me wants to beg every mother to watch this movie with her daughter and talk about what choice and freedom really mean. Before Roe vs. Wade, women died for the mistakes they made. Today they don't have to. This movie wasn't easy to watch. It had a powerful message to deliver, and I think that all the people who helped make this film must have believed very strongly in what they were doing.

Concerning the actual acting and direction, it was superb. Cher's acting has never been better, and Demi Moore was also phenomenal. The structure of the film, which is divided into three sections (one in the 50s, one in the 70s, and one in the 90s) was really engaging. One house is the setting for most of the movie. As the times change and tenants move, different women who live in the house become the focus of the movie. This movie was entertaining and it even taught me something. If you are interested in learning more about abortions before the Roe vs. Wade decision, I recommend the novel The Cider House Rules.

Yes, a bit political, but...
I found this movie a bit political, yes, but it was a very well done movie. I am pro-life and did not find this movie offensive in any way. I felt for the women portrayed here. Those who complain about the political approach are only mad because it is not their belief. If you feel very strongly against abortion, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. Everyone else, watch and think.

If These Walls Could Preach & Nag
By the end of this "bold, provocative" film there's such a smug, desperate self-righteousness that I'm surprised the filmmakers didn't morph the faces of pro-lifers into rats and call for their extinction.
Anyone who finds this film balanced has to be so far removed from reality that the STAR WARS films could be considered documentaries for NASA.

To be perfectly honest, I've stayed out of the abortion debate and rarely offer any opinion, but films like this annoy for their arrogance and, yes, condescension for their "enemies." Go ahead and have a deranged religious fanatic make a martyr out of the abortion doctor--but show us what that abortion doctor does as well. Once the audience sees what happens in a clinic, they could understand how wackos can resort to violence.
Bold? Hardly. Provocative? Not this time.
The drama was tossed aside for a political speech.

The biggest problem I have with the film is that young women will watch it as a "educational" film when it barely qualifies as "entertainment."

Walls and Bridges
When this film was first broadcast on HBO back in 1996, I found it quite compelling. Yes, it had its less than subtle moments, but for a made-for-cable movie, it was pretty darn effective, I thought. The anthology approach--three stories from three different eras in recent history (the 50s, the 70s and the mid-90s)--effectively portrayed the shift in attitudes toward abortion in the US over the past several decades and how its legalization has profoundly altered women's lives. The film's occasional heavyhandedness was not unexpected, but the top flight cast seemed to overcome the script's occasional lapses into preachiness. And overall, it seemed to reflect as balanced a treatment of a complex issue as you could possibly hope for (while definitely maintaining a "pro-choice" perspective throughout).

Or so it seemed at the time. On re-viewing the film recently, I found I had less patience with its flaws for some reason. I have little argument with the pro-choice point of view being advanced by the film. Indeed the film's message that such a choice is almost never anything but traumatic is a potent one and one that abortion rights opponents need always to keep in mind.

But it doesn't invalidate the film's message to say that it probably could have been handled with more subtlety. There are a number of moments in all three films that could have used a leavening touch, but I'll limit myself to one from the third installment (SPOILER WARNING): namely the shoot-up in the clinic that serves as the film's climax.

As someone else pointed out below, by the mid-90s most abortion clinics had metal detectors. Gunmen outside the clinics remained a hazard, but there is no reported case of abortion providers getting shot on the premises (none that I am aware of anyway). Yes, yes, there is such a thing as dramatic license, but when you're dealing with such an incendiary topic to begin with, it's hardly necessary to invoke it.

WALLS remains worth watching, to be sure, but if I were to recommend just one film on the topic of abortion, this would probably not be the one. A film like CITIZEN RUTH addresses the same themes with more irony and panache than this sometimes ploddingly earnest effort can muster. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

"Our Own Court Of Last Resort"
Michael Douglas and Hal Holbrook star in 1983's "The Star Chamber", an excellent drama which has Douglas portraying Superior Court Judge "Steven R. Hardin", who, time and time again, is forced to return criminals to the streets due to legal technicalities. Eventually, he can take it no more -- and resorts to joining an exclusive nine-member organization composed of fellow judges -- The "court of last resort" (as Holbrook puts it during the film).

Hardin's internal struggle in dealing with his newly-acquired (and ultra-secretive) "power" is dealt with nicely in the film, with Michael Douglas giving an outstanding performance in this reviewer's opinion.

In fact, everyone in this cast is letter-perfect in their parts here. From Douglas (who was 38 years old when he made this movie) .... to Holbrook .... to Sharon Gless (who plays Michael's wife) .... to Yaphet Kotto (who gives a very good and restrained performance as a police detective).

And the actors that the filmmakers got to play the killers and assorted crooks in this movie will give you the willies by just glancing at them. The two main bad guys in the film are played by Don Calfa and Joe Regalbuto, and both are wholly convincing as all get out, especially Calfa as "Lawrence Monk". This guy's "look" and ever-bulging eyeballs just scream "shady character". He'll give you the creeps right from the get-go. Great casting, IMO.

I also very much like the way members of the police are portrayed in "The Star Chamber". They seem like "real" cops to me in this picture; not phony in any manner -- another first-rate job of casting and characterization.

For baseball fans, there are even a few brief "cameos" made by some major-league baseball players (circa 1982 or very early 1983) when the filmmakers took their cameras to Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles to film a scene. The two judges (Douglas and Holbrook) take their wives to a ball game between the hometown Dodgers and Atlanta Braves. During the course of this scene, several different Dodgers' and Braves' players appear on screen -- such as veteran Atlanta knuckleballer Phil Niekro (who was pitching against Los Angeles that night), first baseman Chris Chambliss and catcher Bruce Benedict of the Braves, and then-L.A. stars Dusty Baker and Steve Sax.

About the only humor in the movie comes during this Dodger Stadium scene, with several funny lines of dialogue being spoken, such as Holbrook's character repeatedly referring to various Dodger players as "class acts" ("Baker's a class act"; "That Sax is a class act"; "Come on Guerrero! A class act, that guy").

Holbrook gets in another witticism when he looks around at the crowd in bewilderment and utters: "Why does everybody here bring radios? As if they won't believe what they see until Vin Scully tells them HE saw it too." (LOL.)

Sharon Gless gets in a good line too (after discovering that Dusty Baker is making $800,000 a year, which is, of course, a mere pittance when compared to today's ridiculous sports salaries) -- "Eight hundred thousand DOLLARS? That's four times more than the President of the United States makes."

To which Holbrook's character chimes in with -- "Baker's a better hitter." :-)

This "20th Century Fox" DVD sports a very good Anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) version of "The Star Chamber"; plus there's a Full Frame/Pan-and-Scan (1.33:1) edition of the movie on the other side of this dual-sided disc.

The Widescreen version is (naturally, IMO) by far the best way to watch this motion picture -- or any other movie that was originally filmed in a Widescreen format.

A good example of the drastic difference between the far-inferior Pan-and-Scan (1.33:1) format and the intended Widescreen (2.35:1) version of this movie comes in DVD Chapter #13. There's a scene which has Hal Holbrook's character (at his home) getting up to get a drink, while Michael Douglas stands on the far right side of the frame. This nicely-photographed scene, via the proper aspect ratio of 2.35:1 Widescreen, shows Holbrook on the far left side of the screen, while Douglas remains in the shot on the far right.

But if you watch the horrid Pan-&-Scan version of this disc, you'll see only Mr. Holbrook during the above-mentioned portion of the film; while Michael Douglas is completely cut out of the shot (due, of course, to the zooming in and "re-formatting" that is required to blow up a 2.35:1 image to fill up a 1.33:1 TV frame.

There are several well-composed shots in "The Star Chamber" that benefit nicely from the w-i-d-e 2.35:1 composition. Lighting and shadows are also used quite effectively here, with "shafts" of light accentuating the visuals in several parts of the movie. The film is in Color, and the colors are well-rendered and natural-looking on this DVD.


Let's take a look at some more information regarding this DVD-Video product................

>> AUDIO -- Three separate Dolby Digital soundtracks are provided -- English 5.1 Surround; Spanish 2.0 Stereo; and French 2.0 Stereo.

>> SUBTITLES -- In English and in Spanish.

>> MENUS -- Static, non-animated variety of Menus. ... Sub-Menus for "Languages", "Scene Selections", and "Special Features". ... No music utilized.

>> CHAPTER STOPS -- 28 total chapter breaks included.

>> BONUS MATERIAL -- The only supplements are two Trailers. One is a full-length Original Theatrical Trailer for "The Star Chamber"; the other is a shorter "Teaser Trailer" for the film.

>> PAPER ENCLOSURE? -- Yes. There is a two-sided, one-page color insert (with Chapter Index). The front side of this insert, btw, features a different photo than that of the cover art on the DVD's Keep Case. Nice job on the DVD photos, IMO.

>> THEATRICAL RELEASE DATE FOR THE FILM -- August 5, 1983.

>> DVD RELEASE DATE -- February 1, 2005.

>> MPAA FILM RATING -- "R" (For Language and Violent Content).

>> FEATURE RUNNING TIME -- 1 hour, 48 minutes.

------------------

This 1983 "sleeper" has awakened on an excellently-presented DVD edition from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment!

If you currently own the Pan-&-Scan-only VHS version of "The Star Chamber", then toss it out immediately and upgrade to this superior DVD version.

Great movie finally available on DVD!
Hard to believe it took so long for this one to be released on DVD!

A class act finally on DVD
This is a real "in your face" drama that has been all but forgotten about.Hopefully the rumors of the remake are true.
A couple of key things without rehashing the plot....great dialogue, especially from Hal Holbrook and the other judges.When they were looking to fill a vacancy in their ranks and a name is brought up, they disdainfully tore up the potential nominee...."he's a lightweight....I'm sure he's nice to his cocker-spanial, but that's just not good enough".Great stuff.And when Holbrook finally explains it all to Michael Douglas..."you are depressingly familiar".I love that line.

Yes, there are some weak plot points in spots, but overall this movie presents complex issues without clear answers.You have to ask yourself...what would you do?The Doctor who's little boy was killed says it all....."You don't escape so easily".That's what makes this so rivoting....no black and white.

Go buy it....its time to get your fingernails dirty.

The only verdict is "guilty," the only sentence is "death!"
It is often said that one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system is the concept that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent.But what if youhad to live in the community where those hundred guilty murderers and rapists were set free...?

Although an imperfect film, I thought it did a good job of being fair to both sides of the argument (just like the film "Magnum Force"), being unusually free of the usual liberal Hollywood bias.

The criminal justice system will always be flawed, because human beings are flawed, they still make mistakes even when they try their best.But let's face it, even though the standard is supposed to be "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," day after day after day suave defense attorneys bamboozle sheepish jurors into a standard of "beyond the shadow of a doubt."Many defense attorneys often don't try cases -- they try causes.They ask the jury not to render a verdict based on the evidence or the facts of the case at hand, but instead based on how they feel about some social or political issue that they claim is the REAL reason why their client was charged.Time and again, judges, jurors, prosecutors, police and the public are asked to gouge their own eyes out and lobotomize themsleves into ignoring clear evidence of guilt -- even when it proves guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt -- because of some highly unlikely technical interpretation and misapplication of the letter of the law in order to violate its spirit.To many defense lawyers, the term "intellectual honesty" is an oxymoron....(If you doubt anything in this paragraph, then you've obviously never heard of the OJ Simpson case.)

It is easy to understand Michael Douglas' frustrations as a judge.Clearly, the system needs improvements.But by the end of the film it becomes equally clear that Hal Holbrook's changes are not improvements!Erring too far on EITHER side of the equation erodes people's faith in the system, which results in just the sort of breakdown we see in society today.

So, now that "The Star Chamber" (and "Magnum Force") has shown us the dangers of the criminal justice system moving too far to the right, when is Hollywood going to show us the dangers of it moving too far to the left...?Don't bother holding your breath -- read the newspaper instead....

Judges, Jurors, And Executioners
Michael Douglas portrays an idealistic L.A. County superior court judge who finds himself in a cabal of judges known as THE STAR CHAMBER, in this 1983 film of the same name directed and co-written by Peter Hyams (OUTLAND; CAPRICORN ONE; 2010).His character is frustrated about letting criminals go scot-free on charges ranging from kidnapping to murder because of technicalities; even though the evidence would clearly put these thugs on ice, improper procedures by the police force Douglas to obey the letter of the law and dismiss them.

But he gets a look into this Star Chamber cabal from his mentor (Hal Holbrook, good as ever), where he and seven other judges, plus Douglas now, pass judgment on and later find and execute the criminals.In essence, this Star Chamber consists of judges so fed up with the System that they resort to vigilantism.Douglas, however, doesn't see this particular cabal as the answer, and he has to struggle with this dichotomy.

In a twisted sort of way, this seems like the 1973 Dirty Harry film MAGNUM FORCE as reimagined by John Grisham (though this was years before Grisham was ever widely known).But I think the film, though imperfect in places, makes it clear that a private cabal of judges deciding on the violent punishment of criminals who slip through on technicalities is no better (and realistically far worse) than a flawed prosecution in a real court of law.We may think the justice system is slanted so heavily in favor of the criminals, but that's only because that one day, through some weird twists of fate, we too may find ourselves in the position of the criminals.

Douglas and Holbrook are well-matched here, and Hyams' direction, aided by his co-screenwriter Roderick Taylor, brings out some good points in a somewhat flawed but otherwise well-done courtroom drama that is in need of a revival. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

This is my favorite movie
Chimps are featured, but only to keep us from defensively noticing that the movie is really talking about our deepest experience as humans-- the transition from mute wonderment, through learning and loss, into competence and self-reliance. The story seems to meander as Matthew Broderick replaces Helen Hunt as the main human character, but by the end you can tell that the script was written with the greatest of care and skill.

This Film is from 1987 not 1968.......
This Film you present here is from 1987. Project X from the 60's is a 1968 film about a spy who brought back from cryogenic suspension after being almost killed in a plane. Please let me know if I am wrong or correct this mistake on your page

One of Broderick`s Best.
Matthew Broderick gives one of his best performances of his career in this funny, touching, sad story about about army recruit been choose to teach and take care of the chimps but the real problem, he find out the army using the chimps for radiactive about if they can survive ,if they are flying the plane without knowning they could die.

Good Cast including Helen Hunt and William Salder. This Is Broderick`s Best With War Games, Ferris Bueller`s Day Off, Glory, The Lion King(Voice Only), Election and his underappreciate films are The Cable Guy and Godzilla. Grade:A.

Forever Awesome
This movie was my favorite when it first came out. I had fogotten about it then I saw it on tv and I haven't seen it at stores so I came here to find it. You have to watch this movie, Its great!! ... Read more

Description

In LIPSTICK, Chris McCormick (Margaux Hemingway), a high fashion and cosmetics model is brutally raped by her younger sister’s music teacher, Gordon Stuart (Sarandon).After pleading not guilty to the crime and being found innocent by a jury, Stuart finds a new victim in Chris’s younger sister and his own student, Kathy (Mariel Hemingway).Now even more enraged by the recent turn of events, Chris takes matters into her own hands as she seeks revenge for the crimes committed against both herself and her sister. ... Read more

Reviews (17)

I'm torn! Not a GOOD movie and a bare bones DVD ...
This was a 1976 drama that probably killed Margaux Hemingway's career as an actress and model, but oddly enough launched her younger sister Muriel into the spotlight! It's a rape drama about a victim (Margaux) who's rapist goes free (Chris Sarandon), and then attacks her younger sister (Muriel) and then all hell breaks loose!

The movie itself is a guilty pleasure - a potboiler melodrama done quite stlyishly, but somehow offensive and not well acted. Would fit in well with a double bill with EYES OF LAURA MARS! The fashion sequences are unique, and also the modern dance is neat to watch. And Margaux running in heels and a red sequin dress with a hunting rifle is a sight to see! I put it on my list of bad movies that I love. It has a SHOWGIRLS sensibility! Tried hard to be artsy and meaningful, but in the end was just too over the top to be anything but camp.

The DVD has a great transfer, but NO special features at all. Not even a trailer! Pity because Margaux died mysteriously, and this is her biggest movie. Memories of her would be welcome as well as why the movie was made. Credits show that a former DA of LA was an advisor, so somebody was trying to say something!

There's something about this movie ...
It's far from being the best film ever made, but LIPSTICK has some special quality about it. Let's first look at the exceptional performances from the cast:

Chris Sarandon - plays the school teacher of the younger sister (Mariel Hemingway) who rapes the older sister first and then the younger sister after being acquitted of the first crime. He really comes across as the creep he is intended to. You grow to hate him, which is the point.

Mariel Hemingway - her acting debut in which she shines. A great performance.

Ann Bancroft - plays the lawyer convincingly. An all round great actress.

Margaux Hemingway - the lead actress, and real-life sister of Mariel (unfortunately died tragically in mid 90's). Not a great actress by any means but she had her moments in the film. Pity about her voice. She was actually a model in real life then, rather than an actress.

The film bombed upon release in 1976 possibly because audiences couldn't accept Margaux trying to switch to acting. These days, such a movie would go straight to TV.

It is worth seeing at least once - The younger sister's performance is that good.

DVD SUMMARY - a bare bones release saved by an impressive transfer (and widescreen anamorphic too!). No trailer included.

strong stuff
This is one of my favourites from the 70's and it's great to see it finally appear on dvd. This is a hypnotic combination of cheesy exploitation and hard hitting drama that keeps you hooked right up to the explosive finale.
Margaux Hemingway is fantastic as the model who receives the unwelcome attentions of psychotic music teacher Chris Sarandon. Sarandon's character has to be one of the most loathsome ever put on film.
Mariel hemingway delivers a curiously affecting performance as the glamour model's younger sister.
After having only seen this before on UK tv in a cut version this nicely presented disc is a welcome addition to my collection.

Worst Movie Ever
...and boy am I glad it's finally on DVD. Can't wait to get my copy!

Delicious Trash
Oh how I love this film! Margaux is divine as a high fashion model who is raped by her teen sister's school music teacher! Well she is not just raped, she is completely brutalised! I swear some of those scenes looked a bit too realistic. Chris Sarandon is absolutely devilish in the role of the sadistic rapist. He doesn't just physically overpower Margaux, he also attacks her mentally. After the deed is done he slyly begs of her to "not do this with anyone else." During the trial he also torments her with late night calls playing selections of his Phillip Glass inspired music. While the subject matter is serious the film is also high camp & truely hilarious! In an emotional (or as emotional as Margaux can get) courtroom scene she shouts out "he tried to kill me with his c**k!" Let us also not forget lil sis Mariel who gets attacked at the end of the film...after a high speed chase through the Pasadena Design Center! This pushes Margaux over the edge so she grabs a shotgun and goes after Sarandon with a vengeance! After pumping him full of bullets she just keeps pulling the trigger...it is AMAZING! Francesco Scavullo must be so proud. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

the best
its the bast muve of the war ... Read more

Reviews (5)

A Shining Lincoln Shows Tarnish, Too
Though made drearily for television, this film has a number of elements that is ahead of its time. Sam Waterston's savvy, almost hippie-like Lincoln is not at all the "great ape" that many of Lincoln's detractors claimed. He is like the true Abraham Lincoln. With the high-pitched Kentucky squeak in his voice (like Lincoln), Waterston is simply riveting- as Lincoln himself must have been. His terrible screech of pain during the height of the Civil War is something I had always imagined he did several times. Waterston hypnotizes with this Emmy-worthy portrayal. The facts in the film are blurry at times, the direction is plodding, the lighting is too dark- and Mary Tyler Moore as Mary Todd Lincoln must be the casting blunder of the 20th century. Yet all involved give terrific performances. Too bad there wasn't more LINCOLN to this "Lincoln". But all in all, it is the must-see for any interested viewer.

Bland Mini-Series, Very Low Quality DVD
I was surprised to find this DVD so cheap, then found out why as soon as I put it in my player. Like other DVDs from the "Platinum Disc Corporation," it looks like someone took a VHS copy of this film and just recorded it to DVD. The picture is not sharp, and the colors are washed out. Some scenes are so grainy and low-quality they look like they were recorded straight from the 1988 TV broadcast. This DVD also does something I've never seen before - it initially shows a running time of just 1:33, which made me think I only had the first episode of this mini-series. When Chapter 8 concludes, the disc resets itself back to 1:33 for the second episode. Total time is a little over 3 hours. The disc contains no special features.

The film itself is, unfortunately, nothing special. Having been made after the heyday of the TV mini-series, its cinematography and less-than-stellar cast are almost as bland as the film's colors. Sam Waterston makes a good effort as Lincoln. Mary Tyler Moore is just adequate as Mary Todd Lincoln, although she does go over the top on a few occasions. Most of the other actors are stilted and unbelieveable, not to mention the atrocious accents some of them try to pass off. The battle scenes are short, bare-bones and poorly arranged; it looks as if they filmed all of the battles in one location and just used the same footage over and over, hoping no one would notice.

If you're looking for a really good Civil War mini-series, don't waste your time here. Wait for Warner to release all 3 North & South mini-series on DVD later this year (2004), and watch those instead.

Waterston is the Definitive Modern Lincoln
Sam Waterston is a very different Lincoln than the stately, orthodox one of Raymond Massey or even Henry Fonda. This Lincoln is clever, scheming, cynically funny and nakedly ambitious--one who might have a thing or two in common with some well known politicians of the 20th century. You could even call Waterston the first urban Lincoln, under the rail-splitting pretentions. But Waterston never loses sight of Lincoln's tortured, proud but guilt-ridden greatness, and that is the secret of his fine portrayal.

Strong portrait of a different Lincoln
The TV movie, perhaps predictably, doesn't have all the sardonic bite of Vidal's original novel. But it goes a long way toward breaking out of the Raymond Massey talking-waxwork mold and giving us a Lincoln believable as politician and man, as well as a strong portrait of the intensely political milieu in which he operated. Waterston is excellent-- completely unbound by past portrayals of Lincoln, and even fairly good at making us believe that he's anywhere near Lincoln's height-- and though I think there's a little too much of Mary Todd's personal life and not enough of the Civil War in this miniseries, there's no quibbling with Moore's splendid performance, which beautifully captures the pathos of this sad, unliked woman.

Good enough to watch again and again!
This is the best fictional movie about Lincoln that I have ever seen. It is intelligent and accurate, and beautifully directed. Sam Waterston is brilliant in the title role and Mary Tyler Moore is a fantastic Mrs. Lincoln. Believe me, I have watched this movie at least 25 times. It's terrific. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Modest but pleasing modern noir
Henry Czerny plays a married Doctor ,asked by his vacationing neighbours to keep an eye on their nubile teenage daughter,who is being harrassed by a fellow student unable to accept the end of their affair.An affair develops betweem them and she films him getting dressed afterr a sex session,which is somewhat unfortunate as she is shortly afterwards murdered,placing him in an invidious position as he wrestles with both conscience and adesire to protect his freedom,marriage and social standing.

The plot is well worked out although the murderer is easily spotted.Good acting and direction make for a pleasing time passer

I disagree....
I first saw this movie last fall on one of the pay movie channels and enjoyed it. While it certainly is not a work of artistic genius, it's a fun movie to watch late at night and I thought it had sufficient eroticism and suspense to keep me watching. It is the sort of movie that won't require much thinking but it fulfills its purpose of entertaining and I tend to be one that is very critical of the mindless material the movie industry now releases.

Predictable, Boring, and Stupid
This movie is predictable right from the start and really stupid in places. The plot is simple enough, middle aged man with pregnant wife becomes infatuated with neighbors' 18 year old daughter. The man has a very brief affair with the girl after which she turns up dead and the man is now a prime suspect. What is stupid about the whole mess is the fact that nobody seems to be suspicious of the girl's boyfriend, someone who had been stalking her before the affair, everyone is more suspicious about the girl's new mysterious lover. To make the entire mess even more unbelievable, the girl took a video of the single night of passion that she had with her neighbour and he now has to get his hands on it.

The movie is also listed as an "Erotic Thriller". Well, there is very little erotic about the movie at all, in fact there are only two semi-sexy scenes in the movie. The first features the girl taking a skinny dip in the pool and the second is the girl and man having sex for the first and only time. Both times the scene is shot in darkness and you cannot see anything worthwhile to suggest any real nudity or eroticism.

The DVD is also very bare bones. There is very little extra on it. My advice, avoid this movie at all cost and instead consider one (or all) of the Poison Ivy movies.

A pleasant , suspenseful surprise
I viewed this movie with some trepidation, given the title and the somewhat lurid box art. I've followed Henry Czerny's career with interest, and have found his career choices intriguing, so I thought, what the heck. In brief, I was very pleasantly surprised at the quality of performances, production, and particularly the direction. In less talented hands, this could've been movie-of-the-week schlock, but here, it's quite effectively presented. Very little that could be called gratuitous...nicely atmospheric...something of a "neighborhood noir." Again: a pleasant surprise, and kudos to Czerny, an excellent supporting cast (who ARE those guys? ), and a director who bears watching. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

the best
its the bast muve of the war ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Underrated
This movie is a saddening look at one of America's darkest times. It has received lots of negative reviews, but don't listen to them. It is the best movie I have seen about the times and it captures the essence of Hollywood during the 1950s when McCarthy and the House Un-American Committee were at the peak of power. Robert De Niro is excellent, as always, as David Merrill, a director with success, fans, and he is living his dream. Then he goes on a vacation, and when he returns, the town is different. The movie opens up with a typical Committee meeting in which David's friend Larry is spooked by the committee. Before long he is burning his books and disowning his wife as a communist. Red Fever has hit town, and David is next in line. Somebody has named him as a Communist sympathyzer, and he refuses to testify to the Committee because he is angry and doesn't want to hurt his friends. Before long he finds he cannot get a job, not directing, producing, or even working in a film repair shop. His life is turned upside down, and he decides finally to testify to the Committee. The acting is what makes this movie, De Niro, but also Annette Bening, George Wendt, Martin Scorsese is great in a cameo. My favorite part is when one cast member is called a commie by the producer for siding with David. "I turned in commies without the government even asking. If you want to call me a commie, you got to back it up." David replies, "If he wants to call you a commie, he doesn't need to back it up." Some people say it is contrived or unbelievable, but the transformation in David, from materialistic director to a man seeing the need to defy the McCarthyists is done well. If you like history, or if you like De Niro, you will enjoy this film.

Guilty By Communism (If The Shoe Fits...)
Another attempt by leftists to rewrite history and generate sympathy for (and disguise) their collaboration with those who seek to destroy our American way of life. Don't fall for it.
In relation to this dramatized account, I recently watched "Hollywood On Trial", which also seeks to generate sympathy for anti-American activity by showing genuine footage of the "terrible/tragic/unfair/mean spirited/hateful/etc, etc, etc" actual hearings. The interesting thing is that instead of accomplishing the mission of showing the Hollywood Ten as poor, helpless, innocent victims, rather it shows them up for what they actually were (are): communists. It is hilarious to watch them squirm, backpedal and crawfish when asked a simple, straightforward, easy question: "are you now, or were you ever, a member of the communist party?" Anyone who cannot answer this simple question in one word does not need to be in hollywood cranking out subversive, unpatriotic, communist, anti-American propaganda disguised as "entertainment".
For the real story on communist infiltration of hollywood (which is still very much prevalent today, as evidenced by this production of "Guilty By Suspicion"), as well as the real story about Senator McCarthy's efforts to resist those whose goal was (is) to destroy America, I highly recommend the book "Treason" by Ann Coulter (also available on audio CD), which exhaustively documents that communists in America were (and are) not "Guilty By Suspicion", but instead were simply guilty because, despite all their loud, thrashing-around, indignant, tearful, smoke screen laden protestations to the contrary, they were and are communists, committed to the destruction of America.

Guilty by Fact
This is just another pro-communist film that tries to re-paint the 1950's as some type of ruthless time subjected by patriots against innocent leftists. The reality is that Hollywood was full of not only leftwingers but with hardcore communists as well. These people conspired with Soviet agents to tilt the U.S. to the Left and to aid the Soviets in their global war against the U.S.

This film is pure lies in the way it tries to portray these communists as innocent filmakers. The reality is that they were quite guilty and the evidence demonstrating this was without a doubt quite valid.

There's nothing to see in this film that would relate to historical fact so don't waste your time.

A MOVIE THAT PRESENTS THE ANTI-COMMUNISM SUBJECT.
The movie is set in the times when the sole mention of the term "communist" was seen as synonymous of "evil". The film is a critique to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), when it created a Hollywood blacklist, which included Hollywood celebrities considered as communists, banning their works and denying them the opportunity of getting new jobs, until they provided names of more people that "attempted against the American Way Of Life".

Despite the fact that a lot of people confusedly relates the communism with the word "criminal", actually the communism is another way of life of some countries, mostly Europeans. "Guilty By Suspicion" criticizes the paranoia that a lot of people suffered when they heard the word "communism". The thing is that there were (and there are) some criminal communists, as well as there were (and there are) some criminal German, Americans, Mexicans, English, Asians, etc., in all the world there are criminals. But is ridiculous to judge a whole culture with a different way of life based on a few bad people.

Perhaps "Guilty By Suspicion" is not the best political drama movie, but its message is clear, and also features good performances (the fantastic Robert De Niro and the attractive Annette Bening), interesting situations, and a Martin Scorsese cameo. At the end of the day, "Guilty By Suspicion" is an interesting political drama.

Paranoia at its worst
This is a great film about one of the darkest period of American history, the Committee on Un-American activities in 1952, what is known as McCarthyism. It deals only with Hollywood though it had a quite wider range. What is striking about the film is that it looks at this unbearable negation of the American constitution only from the human consequences it created : wives, children, and of course husbands too, but most of the victims were men, at least as shown in the film. The people who came under suspicion were tracked down, under permanent surveillance from the FBI, and they lost all their jobs, all employment possibilities, in the film industry but also in any field possible, no matter how small. They were pushed into suicide, or dereliction. They lost their houses, their property, any means of living and they had to disappear. Happy were those who had passports from other countries, because they were able to leave the country in time, like Charlie Chaplin, and to get refuge in England, France or other countries. There is absolutely no excuse for this action, even if there are many explanations : the Cold War, the anticommunist panic, jealousy and competition from those who were not at the top and managed to get rid of those who were at the top and blocked them, ambition to be able to have a career even if the ambitious did not have the value of their victims, etc. It created a society based on rumors, denunciations, hatred, and a total lack of human values and rejection of all moral and ethical principles. The State had become crazy and had reinvented the fascism that it had fought in Germany and Italy. But the worst part of it is that it took America twenty years to repair the damage. A nd some were not repairable, like the execution of the Rosenbergs. In spite of all, the film is optimistic on human nature, too optimistic, because it is centered on two friends who refuse to talk, who refuse to answer the questions and give names. But those courageous individuals are so few that this optimism is reduced to nearly nothing, a few human beings who consider that their principles, the very principles of their American constitution are more important than their present and their future, that it is easier to explain to their children the victimization they suffer than to explain to them when they are of age that their fathers or mothers had been finks, unhuman an inhumane vultures giving their own friends to the claws of vengeance rather than defending those friends as best they could, which was their Christian duty too. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, Paris Universities II and IX. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Apocalyptic visions can take many forms, from atomic to cosmic disaster, from cautionary tale to sardonic despair, comets, asteroids, plague. But when it comes to the end of the world, one expects fire or ice, bang or whimper. Rarely does this genre focus on the area between those two extremes, as it does brilliantly in Don McKellar's Last Night, a wry tale exploring the effects of the world's imminent demise on a group of characters in Toronto. No panic ensues, no looting, no gnashing of teeth or elaborate schemes to forestall disaster. Well, that may be happening somewhere, but certainly not in Toronto. Here the radio counts down the top 500 hits of all time. The clock ticks by the evening hours while daylight fails to wane. Everywhere, people prepare for the end in ways that range from the mundane to the winsome. The principal action throws together Patrick (McKellar), a dejected young man who plans on spending the end alone listening to music, with Sandra (Sandra Oh), whose plans to spend the end with her husband (David Cronenberg) are thwarted by lack of transportation. Meanwhile, Patrick's friend Craig (Callum Keith Rennie) isfulfilling every sexual fantasy he's ever had. Love the one you're with is the message here. The real star is the tone of the picture, which is distanced and ironic and masterfully maintained throughout. Sarah Polley and Geneviève Bujold appear in supporting roles. It's the directorial debutof actor McKellar (Exotica, eXistenZ), who also scripted The Red Violin. --Jim Gay ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Modest but pleasing modern noir
Henry Czerny plays a married Doctor ,asked by his vacationing neighbours to keep an eye on their nubile teenage daughter,who is being harrassed by a fellow student unable to accept the end of their affair.An affair develops betweem them and she films him getting dressed afterr a sex session,which is somewhat unfortunate as she is shortly afterwards murdered,placing him in an invidious position as he wrestles with both conscience and adesire to protect his freedom,marriage and social standing.

The plot is well worked out although the murderer is easily spotted.Good acting and direction make for a pleasing time passer

I disagree....
I first saw this movie last fall on one of the pay movie channels and enjoyed it. While it certainly is not a work of artistic genius, it's a fun movie to watch late at night and I thought it had sufficient eroticism and suspense to keep me watching. It is the sort of movie that won't require much thinking but it fulfills its purpose of entertaining and I tend to be one that is very critical of the mindless material the movie industry now releases.

Predictable, Boring, and Stupid
This movie is predictable right from the start and really stupid in places. The plot is simple enough, middle aged man with pregnant wife becomes infatuated with neighbors' 18 year old daughter. The man has a very brief affair with the girl after which she turns up dead and the man is now a prime suspect. What is stupid about the whole mess is the fact that nobody seems to be suspicious of the girl's boyfriend, someone who had been stalking her before the affair, everyone is more suspicious about the girl's new mysterious lover. To make the entire mess even more unbelievable, the girl took a video of the single night of passion that she had with her neighbour and he now has to get his hands on it.

The movie is also listed as an "Erotic Thriller". Well, there is very little erotic about the movie at all, in fact there are only two semi-sexy scenes in the movie. The first features the girl taking a skinny dip in the pool and the second is the girl and man having sex for the first and only time. Both times the scene is shot in darkness and you cannot see anything worthwhile to suggest any real nudity or eroticism.

The DVD is also very bare bones. There is very little extra on it. My advice, avoid this movie at all cost and instead consider one (or all) of the Poison Ivy movies.

A pleasant , suspenseful surprise
I viewed this movie with some trepidation, given the title and the somewhat lurid box art. I've followed Henry Czerny's career with interest, and have found his career choices intriguing, so I thought, what the heck. In brief, I was very pleasantly surprised at the quality of performances, production, and particularly the direction. In less talented hands, this could've been movie-of-the-week schlock, but here, it's quite effectively presented. Very little that could be called gratuitous...nicely atmospheric...something of a "neighborhood noir." Again: a pleasant surprise, and kudos to Czerny, an excellent supporting cast (who ARE those guys? ), and a director who bears watching. ... Read more