This movie is very weird. The period (1925) is only defined in the lastscene, and apparently it is based on a true story. In Brazil, the VHSis spoken in Italian having delay in the subtitles in Portuguese. Forthe first time, IMDb provided complete wrong information about a movie.The corrections in the cast I sent were included and now it is correct.My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): 'O Delírio Assassino em Adolfo e Marlene' ('TheAssassination Delirium in Adolf and Marlene')

• Audio/visual unsynchronized: In the dance hall, when they start to sing the national anthem after the director’s announcement, the third girl from the front clearly mouths “Queen” while the soundtrack (and historical accuracy) provide “King”.
• Continuity: In the “flat feet” scene, Milligan takes off his left sock twice.
• Revealing mistakes: When the lorry the men are in is diving across the field to the crashed German bomber, you can clearly see the lorry tracks on the grass made by a previous take.

Spike Milligan was the last goon to go and his unique sense of humour willbe greatly missed, although it does live on in many of today’s comedians. This is a film version of his memoirs of his time in the second world war. The plot sticks close to the book, focusing on the training rather thanlater in the war. However the film can’t completely bring out the absolutemadness inherent in Spike’s writing. The film does occasionally havetouches of him but mostly this feels a little like a carry on film withoutthe smut.

The comments on the futility of war are OK but they feel like they’reheavily thrown into the mix and don’t sit well alongside the comedy. MASHdid better than this later. This film is more like something between aCarry On film and MASH. It neither manages to do the satire well nor do thelaughs as well as you’d hope. It does average with both but never feelscomfortable with either.

The characters are quite well drawn. Dale does well as Spike and manages todo a good job without doing an impression but Spike himself is given littleto do as his own father. The support cast are all good but don’t manage toshine as much as one would have hoped. Maynard, Lowe, Davis and Hughes areall nice surprises but all the best stuff is kept for Dale touse.

Overall Spike fans will feel a little let down by the losses made intransition from page to screen. The comedy aspires to be Milliganesque butonly occasionally does his hand shine through. The end result is stillentertaining but never as funny as it should be. I suggest you all read thebook rather than watching this. RIP Spike – happily your legacy is with useveryday and not just in this film.

2) First of all I am biased as the autobiographical novel on which thisfilm is based is, in my opinion, the pinnacle of Milligan's career andthe funniest thing I have ever read.

The film has a strong cast (but see below), but the script anddirection are weak. It's as though they had no idea how to approach thematerial. Most of the time it's played as a "Carry On" style farce:then we get crude and jarring interludes of fashionable anti-warpropaganda. The two styles just do not mesh or integrate.

As for the actors, they do their best, but the "recruits" are all tooobviously in their mid-to-late-thirties, rather than the 18-22 yearolds they are supposed to be. This problem makes their attempts atsilliness and slapstick rather embarrassing, and the coming-of-agetheme seems misplaced and irrelevant. Arthur Lowe is excellent asalways, but could have been given much more to do. Jim Dale is just toocuddly to capture the central character, and has to resort to pullingfaces and speaking in silly voices to compensate.

The one highlight comes very early, with Spike playing his own father-it's downhill from there.

3) Although it could've been better, and the book may be (I haven't readit and should) it was worth watching simply for the great 'Milligoon's'foray into his war-service years.

It starts with Milligan's (Jim Dale) call-up, not taking anythingseriously, ending up with a brutish baptism of fire at the hands of NCOBill Maynard, but explores also the camaraderie in amongst the pals heis with.

Mishap after mishap happens, as does ad-lib after ad-lib from Spike.There are human moments too, when one of his number is blown up whilstguarding a 'Jerry' 'plane and another weeps, consoled by the greatjoker himself, when he finds his whole family have been wiped out in anair raid. Funnily enough, Milligan himself plays his father at thiswartime, ironically though, as I heard Milligan once say he thought hisdad had a fascist attitude in an interview once on TV.

The film precedes only up until the boys' departure for the front line- it doesn't show anything in action. I imagine that to be relevant inhis follow-up book; 'Mussolini, My Part in His downfall'. (Have I gotthat right?)

Watchable, but not much more than that, but it should be remembered,although adapted for film from the book, he had greater moments withthe Goons and his own 'Q' series in the 'seventies and the other one'There's a lot of it about'. Now they were definitely funny!

4) Spike Milligan was a peculiarly British comedian and, even in hishomeland, generally polarised public opinion. I don’t think theAmericans really understood him. The fact that this film doesn’tusually appear in any of the US house-brick-sized capsule review booksand that US voters make up only a small percentage of the voters forthe film on this site seems to prove the point. I never really took tohim myself – his humour was by turns to silly and surreal for me – buthe always possessed the ability to surprise you into laughter, and thisfilm, based on his memoirs, probably represents one of his moremainstream pieces of work.

Milligan plays his own father here, while his part is played by atoo-old Jim Dale. Milligan was twenty-two in 1940, but Dale was fifteenyears older when this film was made. In fact nearly all the recruitslook like they’re in their mid-thirties. Despite a tendency to mug toooften, Dale nevertheless gives a good account of himself, capturing theflavour of Milligan’s madcap behaviour without resorting to imitationor parody. Milligan always has a snappy comeback to everything here,but the trouble is that, more often than not, what he says just isn’tthat funny. He’s supported by a large cast though, many of whom will befamiliar to British TV viewers from the 70s. There’s dear old ArthurLowe, who essentially plays a slightly less pompous version of Dad’sArmy’s Captain Mainwaring without the glasses; Geoffrey Hughes, whowould go on to become Stan Ogden’s best mate Eddie Yeats in CoronationStreet, plays a fellow recruit, as does Tony Selby, who would bepromoted to Corporal for his role as the tyrannical Marsh in Get SomeIn. Bill Maynard, who later played Selwyn Froggit plays the recruit’slong-suffering Sergeant while It Ain’t Half Hot Mum’s Windsor Daviesplays his Scottish counterpart. Even Stephen Yardley, ITV’s XYY Man,makes an appearance. Despite all these well-known names, the realMilligan still manages to steal the show as the on-screen Milligan’sslightly dotty dad, and it’s a real shame he doesn’t get more screentime.

The film was clearly shot on a limited budget, but director NormanCohen manages to overcome such limitations quite creatively. Unable toshow the armada of German bombers heading for London and the subsequentblitz, he shows us the recruits on a hill, silhouetted by the night skyas they watch the homes of their families being bombed. It’s asurprisingly moving moment, and it’s moments like this and, forexample, Cohen’s effective use of hand-held camera, that show how bigbudgets will never be a substitute for a bit of intelligent creativity.Overall though, the film is probably slightly more miss than hit andwill disappoint Milligan fans while offering only scattered laughs forthose in search of comedy.

5) I never heard of this film till I saw it’s listing in the TV guide. I’m abig Jim Dale fan and love comedian Spike Milligan, so when I swa thismoviewas based on Spike Milligan’s sidesplitting autobiography and that JimDalewas plying Spike and the wonderfully demented Spike was playing his fatherIwas looking foward to this film, but was very disapointed.

The film is about Spike being drafted into the army at the beginning ofWWIIand covered his basic training. There are some wonderful set pieces likeSpike being conned into fighting a much bigger oppenant and when shouldhavebeen a sidesplitting war games adventure, but the comic payoffs aren’tthere. It’s like director Norman Cohen was influence by two then recentfilms, "MASH" and "Oh What A Lovely War", both anti war comic looks atwarand what he should have done was a Carry On type of film.

The cast had a lot of potential too, We have Arthur Lowe of Dad’s Armyplaying a similar role as the base Commander. There is also Bill Maynardasthe sargent and fellow recruits Tony Selby and "Keeping Up Appearences"Onslow, Geoffrey Hughes but they don’t do much with them Lowe who know’shischaracter well comes off best of the supporting cast and Dale iswonderfullydemented as Spike, but the film doesn’t take off. It’s just there, goingfrom one situation to another with very little payoff. Like thepotentillyfunny scene where Spike and his sargent are being chased by a bull butfindout that it’s really a cow. The director let’s on the joke from thebeginning so when Spike and the sarge find out it’s just not the bellylaughit should be. The direction and lackluster editing really let themdown.

It is a pleasent hour and forty minute diversion, thanks to a fine cast,butwhat unfulfilled potential this film had.

• Koo Stark receives an “introducing” credit

Basically The Adolescents deals with a rather reserved girl (Stark)whoattends a private boarding school in England who gets seduced by a youngruffian (Andrews)who takes her back to his apartment where hidden camerasare placed behind groovy 70’s furniture for the purpose of gettingpornographic material for magazines in Denmark, which justifies I suppose,the copius amounts of Tit shots. However, having said that, the film ishandled a lot better than other trashy American Tits and Bum films. Thereisan actual point to the nudity, unlike other films where people for somereason trim their hedges in the nude. But in all honesty, the best thingabout this film is its extensive location filming of London right slapbangin the middle of the 1970’s. So if you want to catch footage of swingingLondon in those glorious old days, check it out.

2) A young Spanish girl (Koo Stark) is sent to a prestigious Englishboarding school. After enduring the usual hazing rituals she hooks upwith two more popular girls and goes off for a weekend in London whereall three fall prey to a cabal of sleazy pornographers (led by JessFranco regular Jack Taylor). This movie starts out as a a fairlyserious and realistic movie, but quickly goes off the rails into thesoapiest melodrama imaginable. The pornography plot is not only highlyhypocritical given how exploitative THIS movie is, but also pretty damnludicrous: why would pornographers go to such ridiculous lengths tosurreptitiously and illegally photograph barely underaged schoolgirlswhen all they would have had to do was hire girls a couple years olderand have them pretend (which is basically what this movie itself did)?On the other hand though, the movie doesn't really revel in its ownabsurdity by, say, going into giallo territory with a lot of bloodymurders (a la one of its obvious models "What Have You Done toSolange?"), but remains a staid and rather dull melodrama (at least,aside from one potentially offensive interracial rape scene).

The main attraction here is Koo Stark, who was the first love ofBritain's Prince Andrew, but was pushed aside because she wasn't abuck-toothed, inbred hillbilly blue-blood like Sarah Ferguson (andbecause she appeared in movies like this). She is very appealing hereand quite good despite having to spend most of the movie as arepressed, bookish schoolgirl with thick glasses and a dubbed Spanishaccent. Spanish actress, Cristina Galbo, from "Solange?", also has avery small (and completely superfluous) role, but naturally, like allthe girls in this movie, she is on screen long enough to take herclothes off.

They certainly don't make 'em like this anymore in this age of starchypolitical correctness and "social responsibility" and that in itselfmay be reason to see this ridiculous, sleazy, and hypocritical piece of70's exploitation.

A SUSPENDED LIFE was a pleasure to watch. The camera follows (often alaFrançois Truffaut) the activities of Samar — a slender, feminine,beautifulyoung teenager. Her attractive essence is in striking contrast to theruinsand violence around her as she navigates war-torn Beirut. Samar tries tobea good daughter to her family. She tries to help her younger friends andkeep them safe. She finds her first romantic love.

Hala Bassam does a fine job as Samar. The other supporting charactershaveplenty of depth to keep them interesting.

The music works well with the visuals — and the visuals are sometimesstylish, sometimes fanciful, but always amazing.

The ending is less than pleasing, but as the director takes poeticlibertiesfrom time to time, perhaps the viewer should not take the ending at facevalue. Rank = 9. Highly recommended.

Simone Signoret gives a stunning performance, subtle and genuine, asthe grand-mere (Mamie) of Marie, guiding her grandchild through thesummer and her first encounters with love and romance. Marie falls inlove with a Jewish doctor, 30 years of age, only to find that thedoctor has more interest in her Dutch mother, who is in the middle ofmarital troubles with her dominant spouse. Marie realizes she will bethe only one who can save her parents marriage and, with the help ofMamie, consults the local 'witch' to create a love-potion.

The question is, will everything return to normal, before the end ofsummer? And if war awaits, will life ever be the same again? Onething's for sure: you'll only lose childhood once, and it will neverreturn…

2) Described by her autobiographer as 'very personal', this film directedby Jeanne Moreau beautifully evokes the rural charm of central France,'the land of sleeping volcanoes'. And then goes on to look at thecoming of age of a young girl.

Simone Signoret is a solid anchor for the other performances and helpsus overlook the film's weaknesses, which include syrupy music, and acontent that is heavily laden with childish silliness for an adultaudience but maybe too frank (at least in their parents' eyes) foryounger viewers.

It concerns a young girl's growing pains, her horror and embarrassmentat periods, her infatuation with an older man, competition with motherfor his affections, and eventually choosing the right path for thewrong reasons. As a role model, the girl (Marie) is complex andillustrative rather than exemplary, although it handles the need forseparation from a mother's influence more realistically than most filmswould.

3) Just before World War II, a 12-year-old girl leaves Paris with her parentsfor a summer vacation in the country. Instead of playing with her friendsthere, she develops an adolescent (hence the film’s title) infatuationwitha 30-year-old doctor that has recently joined the village. The older man,understandably, does not return her affections but instead manifests anevenless-advised interest in the girl’s Dutch mother.

Patrick Gillies’ ADMIT ONE puts its viewers in an awkward position they’veall been in before, and then takes it to the outermost extremes. The poorguy’s reactions are believable and hilarious, and the intercourse betweenthe exhibitionist couple looks genuine, making this whole scenario all themore unsettling.

This is a really nicely made short, and if you get the chance to see it, Ihighly recommend it.

2) The Brighton has a traumatic drama in the breast of their family: thetwenty years old Emily Brighton (Taylor Roberts) is retarded due to afall when she was one, and her overprotective mother Martha Brighton(Amy Madigan) blames her negligence for the accident. The seventeenyears old Evie Brighton (Lauren Ambrose) loves her sister and readspoems and stories for Emily. Their father Harry Brighton (John Savage),a bank investor, lives in the basement with his models of trains andrailroads. Evie mysteriously sabotages her interviews for differentuniversities being rejected, and teaches the poetries of her own toEmily. When Martha hears Emily repeating the poems, she takes notes andshows them to the English teacher Stewart Worthy (Christopher Lloyd),who believes that Emily has had a moment of geniuses. When Evie's onlyfriend James (Fran Kranz) reads the notes, he immediately discloses thetruth about the authority of the poetries. But when Martha becomesaware, she finds the reality of Evie, triggering a series ofrevelations.

"Admissions" is a very powerful drama about needy of love and guiltycomplex. The performances are stunning, and this is the first work ofLauren Ambrose, from "Six Feet Under", that I see and she is amazing.This independent movie is an excellent choice for the viewers that arelooking for a refreshing story based on the acting of the cast. My voteis eight.

Title (Brazil): "Cumplicidade" ("Complicity")

3) I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrosewill too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Underand all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the waythe role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despitesome other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accuratelyand without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout wasFran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more seasonveteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there itseemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybeworked well as a stage-play didn’t hold out quite so well on screen.However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up forthat, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow.I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plaingood acting and cinematography.

4) I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and wasimpressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. Theacting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the partof a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned anddetermined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in theprocess, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested inplaying with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world ofescapism.

The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles.Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has suchversatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession andliterature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He andMadigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both knownothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye isnothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.

And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.

You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably verygood on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it'snonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.

5) We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person.She’s nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest.Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been recitingoriginal poetry, which is getting the community excited about thesister writing. Unfortunately, it’s Evie’s poetry. While their motherstarts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest inEvie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.

What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is.For such a brutally honest person who doesn’t mind telling Ivy-leaguetypes that she doesn’t respect them, it would seem odd that she wouldbe able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she’squite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren’tcharacter flaws, they’re plot development, and they mean a lot morethan they at first seem.

Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the othercharacters’ personalities propel them through drama as relationshipsare held at risk. But in terms of the writing it’s very fresh and bold.The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savantsister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.

The directing and the cinematography aren’t quite as good. They’reacceptable, and Evie’s world is wreathed in color and light, whichmakes for some very beautiful images, but it’s not very consistent.It’s not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low productionvalue, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and areal care for the characters. So while it isn’t a perfect movie, it’scertainly an enjoyable one.

–PolarisDiB

6) I was surprised to like this movie since I’m from the "check your brainat the door and have fun" school of film viewing. However, this filmtouched my heart. I have friends like mentally retarded Emily. I havefriends like unsocialized Evie. And I’ve been in Evie’s shoes, chasingaway opportunity out of fear and out of devotion to others.

Amy Madigan’s disappointment in her daughters was almost palpable onscreen and the awkward moments where she tried to bridge the gap withEvie were raw and painful to watch. And perhaps I am denser than most,but I never saw the twist with Evie’s father coming. Usually I cottonon to those things rather quickly.

My reservations are similar to others posted here. I thoughtChristopher Lloyd’s wonderful, sympathetic character (a very differentrole for him, I thought) was underused. What happened to him once herealized what was going on with the poetry? Would he, like James, tryagain??? Second, the ending, such as it was, didn’t seem to resolve oraccomplish anything. I didn’t expect the pieces to be picked up and allthe ends tied neatly, but I felt that I was left at odds with thecharacters, that there was no real healing taking place here or anyreal efforts at healing being made.

Otherwise, exquisite and lyrical and disturbing and, for some, very,very true.

7) At first I didn’t think that the performance by Lauren Ambrose wasanything but flaky, but as her character developed the portrayal mademore sense. Amy Madigan seemed too terse for her role and didn’t reallytie her daughter’s characters together, even though it was apparentthat her character was disengaged with the character played by LaurenAmbrose.

Christopher Lloyd is a hit as usual and carried off his role toencourage the story line. His character development left the audiencewondering why he was chastised by the younger characters and could havebeen accomplished more directly with

The overwhelming glue to this somewhat vague story line was play byTaylor Roberts. Her comprehensive delivery of a simplistic characterheld the movie together. In this pivotal role, Taylor was able toencourage a realistic family relationship between the characters whileacting as the antagonist for all of the other relationships in thefilm.

This movie moved much too slowly for my taste.The concept of the storyis refreshingly different in that it explores the family dynamics ofliving with a mentally-retarded family member in a way that I have notpreviously seen on-screen.However,the execution of the concept wasflawed.Each character was developed fully within the scene of her firstappearance,then one had to endure the feeling that each character wastreading water the rest of the way.That is,each character flailed aboutawkwardly in her interpersonal relationships with others in themovie,which I found to be a form of emotional and social retardation.Isuppose this has artistic merit,given the irony that the story centersaround an intellectually retarded individual surrounded by wayabove-average intelligence friends and family.The acting,however,waswell-done without exception.I agree with other reviewers that thecinematography was beautiful.In summary,I think the film has strongartistic merit because of the fine acting and cinematography,but failson an emotional level due to the shortcomings described.

9) There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl goingthrough the admissions process at school. The parental absence at allimportant junctures in Lauren Ambrose’s school search provideadmissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at belowtranscript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years ofhigh school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviouslyblock a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or herdisabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother’s truerinvolvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has donesomething big – trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that planitself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is – still giving wheneveryone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yetconnected to her head – something that age has never had a genuineanswer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, notnecessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authoritynonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler…….(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see throughunderstanding of a proportional world – she made hers up on what sheknew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higherlearning though having no friends present for her time makes the endinga developmental tragedy in progress … given a bird in a cage… not apuppy… that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas outof the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life.Sad is the looming psychiatric ending… how could she be committed ata time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it ornot taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird atthis time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too muchmental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story.The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is asdeveloped as the training education will allow for the mental maturitythat dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. Imyself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education thatbuying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. "Run theworld" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who wasfreeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is nothaving your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has beendenied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What iscollege, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with yourclass or without it – what is the exchange? A lifetime of correctingyouth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The lossfollowed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexualintimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn’t goodpeople treat her with good things? If good people do not do good thingsfor good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked onlong before personal development is given a winning game. Her act takenin life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as"Christmas Doors" not "Admissions".

10) This movie was extremely dramatic and an odd one at that. Evie did goodacting and so did the other characters except Christopher Lloyd. Itwasn’t his acting, it was his character development. I think he shouldhave been in the movie more, putting things together and figuringthings out. Also i kind of feel bad for the guy, Fran Kranz. Why did hekeep on going back to Evie when she was obviouslypsycho??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was also disappointed by the ending.Maybe they could have showed more development of Evie’s future. Eventhough they kind of hinted that Evie and James would get together Ithink that it would have been better the movie showed the future ofEvie and James or the future of Evie, attending a Berkeley class orsomething or showing their wedding, i don’t know. So you shoulddefinitely see this movie, You will be blown away!

2) The Hollywood treatment of the problems of returning servicemen afterWorld War 2 took many forms – sob stories, psychological dramas, filmsnoirs, even musicals – but this film is unusual, perhaps even unique,in giving them an irreverent screwball slant. The script sparkles withwise-cracking dialogue, and the action proceeds headlong inunpredictable directions. It is the sort of movie that the phrase"never a dull moment" was coined for. The two leads did full justice totheir parts, but they lacked the star status to impress the critics. IfClaudette Colbert and Cary Grant had been cast, or Jean Arthur andJimmy Stewart, they could have performed no better, but this film wouldnow be assured of its place in the annals of screwball comedy insteadof being neglected and almost forgotten. Luckily it is not lost. It isavailable on DVD in eminently watchable condition, albeit without thefull restoration that it deserves.