2) 'Afraid to Talk' is one of those efficient low-budget Hollywoodfeatures that deserve to be better known. This drama of corruptpoliticos is very much of the 1930s. I don't mean to say that modernpoliticians are less corrupt than their 1930s counterparts, but thecorruption in this film is heavy with the milieu of the Depression era.This movie's appeal is helped considerably by a large cast of familiarfaces. Even Arthur Housman gets a look-in, doing his perennial drunkact.

SPOILERS AHEAD. The very talented character actor Edward Arnold spentmost of his film career portraying two types: incorruptible authorityfigures, and seemingly incorruptible authority figures who are secretlycrooks. Here, for once, Arnold plays an outright crook who doesn't hidehis dishonesty … and named Jig Skelli, no less. Skelli's rival forcontrol of the underworld is one Jake Stransky, played by RobertWarwick. I disliked this casting: Warwick was a deeply cultured actorwith a cultivated stage voice (although American, he sometimes playedupper-class Englishmen). Warwick, a good actor within his range, issimply not believable as a thick-ear gangster.

When Skelli rubs out Stransky, the hit is witnessed by bellboy EddieMartin (Eric Linden). Determined to leave no witnesses, Skelli tries tokill Eddie but merely wounds him. Eddie grasses to the authorities …which, in this movie, proves to be a mistake. The district attorney(Tully Marshall, excellent), his assistant (Louis Calhern, quite good)and the mayor are all crooked too, and in Skelli's pocket. The mayor isplayed by Berton Churchill, who sometimes played respectable authorityfigures but more typically (and more effectively) portrayed authorityfigures who are secretly corrupt. Churchill's most memorable role wasas the banker who embezzles from his own bank in 'Stagecoach': he playsa similar character here.

The D.A. realises it wouldn't be a good idea to indict Skelli, sinceSkelli has got the goods on every crooked politician in town. But themurder of Stransky has got to be prosecuted. So the D.A. indicts poorEddie Martin! Talk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time! Theinnocent Eddie is pressured into giving a false confession, and nowhe's looking at a death sentence.

Eric Linden briefly played lead roles in this and a few other films. Asthe hapless bellboy Eddie, Linden is impressive in a role requiring arange of emotions. Viewers who have never run afoul of the justicesystem might have difficulty believing that an innocent man wouldconfess to murder; I found Linden's performance entirely believable,and I'm painfully aware of the tactics which corrupt police andprosecutors employ to wring confessions out of the innocent.

Much of 'Afraid to Talk' is excellent. Although there are several finesupporting performances, Sidney Fox is insipid and dull in the femalelead as Eddie's frantic wife. Also, the last reel of the movie seemsrushed … as if the scriptwriters needed to tie up the plot beforethey ran out of typing paper. My rating for this one: 8 solid pointsout of 10.

• This film was intended as a theatrical release but went straight to video instead.

i got into his film in a pretty dark point in my life

but even tho im in a far happier situation lifewise nowadays its still myalltime favourite film

it might be unsophisticated in many ways but its brilliant in manyothers

simple lines like "who the f**k are you then"

and "bloody hippies" take on real comic moments in thisfilm

if you get the opportunity WATCH IT

a simple but ultimately rewarding way to spend 120 mins

ps im perfectly sane even tho ive seen this over 150 times

2) Needles is Mr "every crim"…doesn’t even have a name. Loser of asmall-timethief who makes the dubious acquaintance of shoplifter Miss Jones, whoalsocarries no name. He had actually planned on stealing her car just as amatter of record.

The two socially outcast losers hit it off and embark on a short termspreemuch along the lines of a "no frills" Bonnie and Clyde!

Ultimately purposeless little flick but not too badly acted I have toadmit.Way better than the recent IMPOSTER at least!

The real impetus of this movie occurs in the details. Some randomexamples:

*Lucas' name means "light."

*The pattern on his pajamas resembles prison stripes, perhapssymbolizing the entrapment and immobility that he fears from impendingblindness.

*The dual nature of the knitting needle–a)descriptions like 'sharp'and 'penetrating' apply to its function as well as to a person'sinsightful abilities, and b)the veiled sexual reference of the act ofstabbing as a displacement for the impotence Lucas feels, both inlosing his sight as well as for the basic powerlessness of childhood.

*He sees through a telescope/he calls his knitting needle atelescope…telescopes are supposed to bring the distant object close,but they also fold inward on themselves, a diminution of what theywere. They reveal, and then they collapse.

*The color blue, mostly missing from the film's palette, is used mainlyfor tiny details like picture frames (something which contains ourvisions…rather like Lucas' eyeglass frames contain his actualvision); a cabinet (also something which contains, even locks up, andcan withhold its contents from view as opposed to putting them ondisplay); the baby sister's beautiful blue eyes, praised even as Lucas'eyes are ever more distorted through his lenses; the knitting hismother makes for the baby, surely an unusual color for a femaleinfant–but is it really blue or has Lucas completely lost sight ofreality by now? Even his demeanor is "blue" as he becomes increasinglymore detached, both from reality and from the people and events aroundhim.

His detachment is partly a result of his confusion. He can hardly see,and what he thinks he sees, he can't trust. Therefore, his responses topeople become odd and then almost nonexistent. For the most part hestops reacting to them. He is in the process of disappearing from hisown life. The world is becoming invisible, and so, it seems, shall he.

He further detaches from the world around him as people remain blind tohis bizarre inner landscape and the worries besetting him. There is alovely dichotomy in the scene where he is across the street from thewedding crowd. Without his thick lenses, the people appear to beineffectually stabbing about with canes and dark glasses. When he putshis lenses back on, the people look normal. They can't see when hecan't see, but they can when he can. One of his fears is that the worldwill be as uncomprehending of him as it will be incomprehensible tohim, when he is blind.

There is also the fear that other senses aren't to be trusted. Noticethe scene where Toby is trying to get in the window: the squeeching ofthe soapy rag against the glass blends with the dog's eager whinesuntil the noises and suds somehow become the signs of a crazed, foamingbeast. The deterioration of Lucas' senses and the destruction of whathe loves become one and the same.

No wonder this is a terrified little boy. And if he can be impelled byhis dark visions to kill Toby, whom he loves, what might he do to babyTess who is, at the very least, an object of ambivalence? Interestingthat the name Tess means 'harvester' or 'reap.' To reap is to glean (acommon synonym for comprehension, as in "what can you glean from thissituation?"). It is to collect, to gather–also terms for pullingoneself together. A harvester is productive, someone who expeditesgrowth (crops in the field) into sustenance (grain for the bread), justas the emergence of baby Tess brings about the full flowering of Lucas'fears, feeding them to the point of his fateful act.

Tess is the final catalyst, personifying the loss that Lucas so dreads.He has lost big sister Rose to marriage and eventual motherhood, hisparents to their absorption with the baby, his pal Toby is dead, hisgrip on reality is loosening, and he is losing his vision and with it,his freedom. For all he knows he could even lose his life in theimpending eye operation. All this loss solidifies in the diminutiveimage of Tess. The periphery of his world has narrowed until the onlyfocus is this new little baby who hasn't seen anything yet, and so hetakes her. To preserve her? To show her his view of the world? To makeher the repository of his last vision? Or for something more sinister?At this point the action is pretty ambiguous. I can't tell what hisintentions are, and maybe he can't, either. However, in looking at theclues provided in the names (father Frank, means forthright,let's-be-frank; mother Miriam, biblical namesake protects the boyMoses; sister Rose, roses signify purity, love; brother-in-law Tony,means 'praiseworthy'; Lucas and Tess, lucidity and reaper) I tend tothink a positive outcome is intended all along.

It is a nice moment at the end when Lucas tells the nurse, "I like tolook," whereas before, looking had become a frightful, confusingexercise. He watches her knitting needles as shadow puppets on thewall, but instead of something horrific they are just…knittingneedles. Nothing more. Real is real.

That's how I see it, anyway. Someone else might have a differentinterpretation. I have to love a movie that lends itself to alternateviews.

2) Psychological horror stories often rely on clichéd images and storiesto evoke terror from the audience. A notable exception is the film"Afraid of the Dark" which stars Ben Keyworth as an 11 year old boy whostruggles with morbid fears of going blind, as well as fears of astalker in the streets of London who preys on the blind. This moodythriller has a convoluted story and abstract pace that make itdifficult to decipher, but the movie is worth the effort due to it’ssubtle horror that is mesmerizing! This one ferments in the psyche longafter viewing. Keyworth is joined by a strong cast including FannyArdent, and James Fox, but Keyworth is the true strength of the film.His intense demeanor is riveting!

3) Young Lucas, an adventurous young boy, is seen as a fearless creaturewho seems to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time. When we firstmeet him, he accompanies his mother to a sort of care center for theblind. There are reports of a slasher that is cutting the faces of someof the blind people that attend the center. When he follows one of thewomen, who leaves nearby, he watches in horror as her face is slashedby the intruder. Lucas flees to the cemetery nearby, where he likes toplay. It's at this point that we realize something is wrong with Lucas,who ends up spying on his half sister posing for a photographer.

Then, everything changes.

The mere reality is that everything one has witnessed is just not so.The fact is that Lucas is going blind if he doesn't have the operationto save his sight. His loving parents, Frank and Miriam, are ecstaticbecause they are expecting another baby, something that doesn't playwell in the young boy's mind. Lucas, who probably feels jealousy towardthe unborn baby, thinks of ways of dealing with the intrusion in hislife. His obsession with knitting needles prove to be a dangerousproposition.

Mark Peploe, who co-wrote the screen play, creates a film that will bedisorienting for a lot of viewers, but which ultimately, satisfy theones that stay close to the story. There are many indications the firstsection of the movie is just how Lucas' mind work, just the opposite ofwhat one sees on the screen.

Ben Keyworth, who plays young Lucas, is perfect for the role. He makesthe most of his Lucas, by just being where he is. This boy is an enigmawho is not immediately understood and has to assert himself. James Foxand Fanny Ardant play the parents. The supporting cast does fine underMr. Peploe's direction.

"Afraid of the Dark" is a film that makes the viewer think because it'snot what one sees what's really is going in Lucas' mind.

4) This one can be a bit challenging, but it’s well worth the ride.Written and directed by Academy award nominee Mark Peploe. Withoutincluding a spoiler it is difficult to describe too many elements ofthis surprising film. Sufficed to say, as the revelations begin, youcan see layers of complexity and psychology that you weren’t expectingat the beginning. There are many original things in this movie; not theleast of which is numerous interpretations of blindness andhelplessness through the eyes of a child. Now that probably makes yourecoil – too artsy/fartsy, but I assure you this is a thriller.Genuinely creepy and the young actor Ben Keyworth that plays Lucas isoutstanding.

5) A young boy, Lucas(stunning, haunting performance from young BenKeyworth)who is slowly going blind, dreams up a horrifying nightmareabout a serial slasher of blind women nearby his London home(..with agraveyard located outside his window, no less). It seems to take shapewhen he places his thick-lensed glasses on which might mean that theimpending surgery of his eyes has created such a subconscious fear ithas taken shape in reality. A poor dog, Toby, becomes a victims ofthis. Those in reality, Tom Miller, a locksmith(David Thewlis), awindow washer, and photographer Tony(Paul McGann)all seem to becomeforeboding possible killers in the horrifying fantasy. Lucas' step-dadFrank(James Fox), in reality a florist, is a cop on the case of theslashings of the blind women in his nightmare. Mother Miriam(FannyArdant)is pregnant in reality with perfect sight(..who says she wouldrather be the one going blind rather than her son)but blind in thenightmare which has the young lass worried for her safety..and laterthe child after it's born, although the film paints the possiblepicture he'd rather harm the infant than keep it safe. Rose(thebeautiful, fine-figured Clare Holman)is Frank's daughter in reality onthe verge of marriage with Tony, but in the nightmare also blind,married to someone else blind, who is possibly threatened by Tony,anything but the person in real-life.

In the nightmare we follow the boy as he canvases the area around wherethe serial slasher might frequent, but watch his unusual, cold mannerabout things..he's an observer who seems almost unphased at the terroroccurring around him. His voyeuristic activities has him seeing peoplefrom a different perspective because..and this is the powerful aspectin the nightmare I think..most are blind except Frank, the policeman,an ice-cream vendor who lusts after Miriam, the locksmith, windowwasher & photographer. So obviously he sees what the innocents donot..how certain people truly are. In the reality, we also see acut-away Lucas who seems like Waldo amongst a group of people existingas if he's not there. I don't think he is for the most part..hison-coming blindness and the pregnancy about to take place take shapeover everything else. The surgery is also the main event that trulyterrifies him..the doctor who will have the knife is a scary blind hoboin Lucas' nightmare(one of his eyes has an albino white tint for extraominous effect).

I'm afraid this flick will be frustrating to many who might not attachto the lead character who can be quite creepy, and detached, for mostviewers. I saw this as an interesting approach seeing him as a youngboy struck with fear losing his sight, both mentally and physically. Ithink this film goes into some dark psychological places..treads ontothat territory of fear using blindness and impending blindness ascatalysts to tell the dark tale. The slasher, the glasses and what theysee when Lucas puts them on and removes them, and the knitting needlewhich seems to be his weapon of protection..all seem to representsymbolic images of the blindness he fears of.

6) **Spoiler Alert: Possible explanatory SPOILERS ahead, necessary for myreview**

"Afraid of the Dark" is a movie about a young British boy, Lucas, whosuffers from an eye condition which, if not corrected with a surgicaloperation, will certainly cause him to go blind. The movie shows how hementally fades in and out of his "real" world, often times creating ahellish imaginary world that only a young, impressionable, and, namely,SCARED little boy could create.

I saw it once, didn’t understand it, and didn’t much care for it, as itseemed a confusing, unentertaining hodge-podge of an art-house film –although I did enjoy the dark, moody, atmospheric feel to it. I also likedthe London row-house setting. It is a quiet movie, a virtually humorlessmovie, with a rather somber, at times slightly eerie soundtrack.

Interestingly, I had recorded it on tape, and, not wishing to re-recordsomething over it without giving it at least another chance, I decided towatch it again… surprisingly, it was more compelling viewing the second timethrough, and I’m glad I saved my tape.

It helps to understand that the movie combines healthy doses of artisticlicense as well as portrayal of events that are purely a child’s fantasy,which, upon first viewing can be so confusing and off-putting that I can seewhy the average viewer might not like this movie. You will spend a lot oftime wondering what’s real, and what’s not.

But give it a chance. You may have to watch it twice, like I did, but youwill be rewarded. Just remember that many of the "twisted" scenes in themovie are not real: they are scenes that merely reflect a nightmare world asconcocted by the hyper-imaginative mind of the scared young boy, Lucas, whois terrified of his upcoming eye operation/possible blindness. So I mustgive the film great credit for not only being imaginative, but also verysobering, as it is a thought-provoking glimpse into the frightened mind of achild faced with possible blindness.

7) This is a very interesting film. If you watched it without any knowledge ofwhat the storyline was then you should have been intrigued by the slightlytwisted world the lead character lives in.

That is about as much as I can describe the film without ruining it bytelling you more.

In terms of a film despite living in England my whole life I do tend toprefer cheerier sets than those seen in this film. I find them depressing tobe honest. Some people will probably find that adds to the film or itsmessage.

My strongest post viewing thought was, I wish they had crammed more into thefilm to push the story along. There is some good stuff here, but I fear thatmany viewers will just be lost or lose patience; if you don’t feed a dog hewon’t be your friend.

To better understand what the director was attempting to do, I readmany of the other posts on this film after watching it–because,clearly, it was a murky way to tell a story about an odd little boy whothinks he might be going blind. Some of the explanations seem validenough, but that still doesn't make AFRAID OF THE DARK any more than anexperimental film that doesn't quite have the payoff intended.

The boy, played by BEN KEYWORTH, wears extra thick glasses and sees theworld in a distorted way. It's through his vision that we perceivewhat's happening, although much of the action is in his mind and is notreality. That's why there are so many layers to get through if you wantto enjoy the film.

Frankly, I was annoyed by some of his choices–particularly, theincident involving the dog Toby–and the only character in the storythat I could fully relate to was the father, played by JAMES FOX. Wellmannered, he seemed an understanding parent but was willing to put upwith an awful lot of wrong and downright odd behavior from his son.

Certain elements of the film were original in concept, such as theknitting needles and how they took on a different significance in thefinal scene, but overall there were many moments that seemed to drag,the pace suffering from bad editing.

Not the sort of film I'd want to watch again and ultimately has to beconsidered a disappointment for a film that had so much potential tobegin with.

9) The boy cannot see the external world very well, so he has developed anenhanced internal vision, or imagination (first third of film plus otherbrief scenes). He is terrified of going blind because blindness makes onevulnerable to all sorts of dangers (hence the title). So he uses hisfantasyworld to empower himself. I think that’s the point of this film. Forexample, there is no actual person who slashes blind people. This is oneofhis imagined threats. And he figures out a way to defendhimself.

10) I asked myself what kind of comments I could make on this movie withouthaving them contain spoilers. It is a challenge and the followingparagraph is what I could come up with.

This movie is a thriller, but don't expect a thrill a minute. It has anaustere feel, with even pacing punctuated by moments of horror. Thereare scenes that made me wince, scenes that I found repugnant, and acouple of scenes that made me gasp. But, as with most movies in thisgenre, the tension builds in anticipation of the intense scenes; themusic aids in creating this tension. The action is seen primarilythrough the eyes and imagination of eleven-year-old Lucas (BenKeyworth) who is rather withdrawn and reactive. How you respond to theone major plot twist will determine whether you think this is aninteresting movie, or whether you think it is confusing with enoughimprobabilities and plot holes only to irritate.

**Spoilers here** The revelation mid-way that what we have seen aredreams or hallucinations that Lucas has been having in response to hispotentially going blind give meaning to the title beyond what oneinitially thinks. I knew only what I had read in Maltin's book beforeseeing the movie, but the mid-story revelation was not a totalsurprise, since we had been living in an unreal world until then. Therewere never any indications of normal life going on – an unreal worldwhere no cars were on what should have been busy streets, and no peopleto be seen but those directly involved in the scene at hand. Lucastransforms his fear of the surgeon's scalpel into the razor of a serialslasher praying on blind people. His mother is blind (signifying herinattention to Lucas' agony?) and his father is a policeman who isunable to locate the slasher (signifying his impotence to deal withLucas' problem?) In the final episode of this first-half mad sequenceLucas tracks the slasher down and kills him in a symbolic attempt toexorcise the eye surgeon from his life.

After that catharsis we supposedly return to the real world, but thingsget a little confusing then. We come to feel that not only has Lucasbeen driven to fantasy by his fear and anxiety but perhaps he has alsobeen driven a bit mad. Children can certainly respond in exaggeratedand irrational ways to perceived threats (well, adults can too), so Icould believe the first half as that kind of reaction, but in thesecond half, when Lucas hallucinates in real time, I began to questionhis sanity.

I suppose fear and anxiety can drive one to madness, but the way Lucaswould drift in and out of reality (usually being in when he had hisglasses on and out when not) struck me as borderline schizophrenia andI believe that that is a more organic disorder than a response to fearand anxiety. But, in the final scene, after the operation, Lucas seemsto have returned to normal, even questioning if he had killed theneighbor's dog. So, go figure.

If there is a message to be taken from this it is that people shouldtry to be a little more in tune with what is going on in the minds ofothers. We are inclined to put a smiley face on situations where thereis clearly something bad going on. It is clear that Lucas is havingsome serious problems, but his parents are more than happy to take himat his word when he says that things are just fine, even when they cansense at some deep level that that is not the case.

2) I saw "AFR" last week in an inner city Copenhagen cinema with a fewfriends, all hoping to be provoked, inspired and certainly entertained.Well, we were all somewhat entertained by the absurdity of seeing thedanish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen portrayed absolutelyfictionally vague in his grasp of political ideologies, as well as thepathetically desperate attempt at trying to cut him down to a veryhuman size in the shape of a love-desperate closet homosexual, whichallows us to both patronize and in the end sympathize with him.Somewhat entertaining. Ultimately failing at carrying the weight of thetask the director attempts to undertake.

Obviously the disclosure of the personal life of important politicalfigures are somewhat interesting, but I'm utterly befuddled with whyone would attempt at trying to raise such thought-provoking issues andabsolutely vital questions concerning the current danish andinternational state of politics and the media, and in the end chose togo so exploitative and low-brow about it. What was supposed to be amovie about how tight the borders around such things as freedom ofspeech, sexuality, ideology, and so on, ended up being a rather hurriedsatirical tale told from a tongue tied at all times where it attemptsto preach its personal definition of tolerance. If this is theconsequence of the thinking that spawned such a feeble screenplay, thenthe thought process behind such writing is on all levels incrediblyuninteresting in the context of the discussions that the movie tries toignite.

Granted, vulgar attempts at intellectualism aside, the movie is notentirely without merits, and one thing worth noting is the interestinguse of editing interviews and manipulating words of various politicalfigures portrayed in news footage. Such a practice is one known to beused by the popular media, and it's absolutely interesting to bewitnessing this strategic instrument used to fabricate truths quiteunlike those with whom we're accustomed to seeing the danish primeminister spun into.

Technically, (without myself being a diploma-holding dramaturge) thepace of the movie seemed very rushed, not in the sense that therewasn't a decent build up. It just felt like the character developmentwas so forced, and lacked subtlety to a tenth, which severely hurt thebelievability of the story that emerges from the premise. The actingwas artificial at times, and though its was apparent to the audiencethat the format was documentary, many of the actors and actresses wasobviously encouraged to try to "act" naturally. Something that made itextremely difficult to maintain a suspended disbelief.

In short, this film was entertaining, but it failed at all attempts toraise any serious questions. Once the audience has become satisfiedwith mundane, such as "what if the prime minister was homosexual", thenthat's what the debate would be about. I give the movie 5 out of 10,and mostly because of the skilled, though unremarkable editing, andbecause of the element of sensationalism that the movie brings to thetable.

• The film was released without any expectations for it to bring a lot of money. But the film got extremely popular with USSR citizens and became one of the highest grossing films in the USSR history of movie-making.
• For the disco club scene two real Russian bands were invited to play, “Arax” and “Mashina Vremeny” both extremely popular back then. Information sneaked away to the public and set was overcrowded by both bands fans to listen for their music and eventually provide mass dancing background free of charge for the film makers, completely unexpected.

2) As well as being a great movie as a form of art. This film should alsobe shown at schools when learning history of the USSR. In this film allthe shabbiness and all the good sides of living in that, lost alreadycountry, are shown.

Though the story looks a bit simple and uninteresting, if you watch ityou will understand you were wrong. It is a tragical comedy, it is evena drama. The first part of the movie makes you laugh, the second half -to cry. The story of Borshev A.N. is so common, so tragical and sotypical at the same time.

This is one of my favourite Russian films.

This is one of my favourite films.

3) One of my favorite USSR movies. Offers huge psychological backgroundfor viewer. Many are keen to think "Afonya" is a comedy, but i wouldrather call it tragical comedy. Movie shows many details of generalUSSR citizen life, but i would say it goes even much deeper, and triesto analyze human relations, especially it is visible in discussionsbetween main hero and friend, who stays at his place, after wife driveshim off home. Danelia made movie very close to reality, and guesseveryone who had lived in USSR could recognize there himself. Trickedhopes, lost chances in past, lack of reversible love – all is there.Till the very end you have no clue how it will end, as in life. Somemoments make you cry, some to laugh, but i guess there is no momentwhen you get indifferent to actions on screen. Great job by Danelia!

Like e.g. Jordan’s In Dreams, Lynch’s Lost Highway or Del Monte’s JuliaandJulia, this kind of movie adds a new visual level to psycho-thriller movieart, and leaves you with the task of separating real events from imaginedevents in her mind.

Like the other movies, however, the basic story really is a sane andsimpleplot that is more or less straight down the line.

2) Petty thief and con man, Raja (Akshaye Kumar) decides that the easiet way to get rich is to get married to a wealthy girl, and in doing so, he decides to change his identity to Professor Parimal Chaturvedi and teach in a college. Once there, he meets with rich and pretty Pooja (Urmilla Matondkar), and both eventually fall in love with each. Unfortunately, his true identity is revealed and he is fired from the college. Aware of Pooja’s anger, Raja dramatizes this situation to his advantage, turning Pooja’s anger, to sorrow; and then even more love for him, to the extent of introducing him to her dad, Vidya Prakash (Anupam Kher). When Vidya Prakash meets him, he recognizes him as Rocky, a dangerous criminal, who will not stop at anything, including killing anyone who will stand in his way.

in AFLATOON again he played it and this time he got a negative role tooAfter rejecting it in BAAZIGAR(1993) he finally played a villain whichhe played in KHILADI 420 and AJNABEE again

The movie is typical commercial movie and badly directed

The first half is typical and boring With the emergence of Rocky thingsget better but then again the tempo isn't maintained, the twist is wellhandled and then the film follows the same formula

Guddu Dhanoa's direction is bad Music is okay, title song stands out

SFX(involving both Akshay's) is damn laughable, however because it isof 1997 it is okay

Akshay Kumar repeats his good for nothing role of MR & Mrs Khiladi infirst role and is nothing great As Rocky he puts full effort butsometimes it looks too made up but otherwise he does a good job in thevillainous role Urmila annoys Anupam Kher is okay

"Prelude 12/21" "Girl's Not Grey" "The Leaving Song Pt. II" "SummerShudder" "Kill Caustic" "The Days Of The Phoenix" "Endlessly, She Said""A Single Second" "The Missing Frame" "Bleed Black" "Silver and Cold""Dancing Through Sunday" "This Time Imperfect" "Death Of Seasons""Totalimmortal" "Love Like Winter" "God Called In Sick Today" "MissMurder"

is perfect for the mixed fan base, and makes all fans feel like theyare getting the time and money's worth. Due to the affordability ofthis DVD, all fans will be well advised to add this to theircollection.

2) What more can I say? AFI. Long Beach Arena. Live concert. It rocks.

For those of you that don't know AFI, I'll tell you. AFI is a rock bandthat formed in Ukiah, CA, dropped out of college, and became aninternational success. They released some great albums over the years,their best (in my opinion) is Sing the Sorrow.

First of all, how can I say no to this concert. They start of withtheir best songs such as Girl's Not Grey and The Leaving Song, Part IIand end with more great songs like God Called in Sick Today and MissMurder. The only thing that creeps me out about this DVD is what DaveyHavok, the lead singer, does after they play their even creepierTotalimmortal. What he does is lean against the drums, presents his assto the audience, and then screams. And the camera gets a close up onhis purple make-up. WTF O_o Buy the DVD. You might not be a fan of AFI,but buy the DVD anyway. There's the concert and more on their. Heck, ifyou don't wanna buy the DVD, see it on YouTube. Even if it's not fromthe DVD but instead recorded from some dude's camera (which iswaaaaaaaaay more interested cuz you can see what the fans were doing).

3) Afi: I Heard A Voice has got to be one of the best music DVD's I haveever seen. It was filmed with 23 HD cameras in Long Beach and it wasbeautifully done. Afi puts on a truly amazing performance filled withraw enthusiasm and pure emotion from the lead singer Davey Havok. Aswell as an amazing concert, there are tons of extra's such as a videomontage, many photos and a in depth interview with AFI as well asmembers of the Despair Faction, Afi's support group. I would have tosay it was one of the best films I've seen in awhile. It was craftedvery well and was, well, excellent. It's a definite for any AFI fan.Good Job Afi.

2) Not as good as AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Movies, but this documentary stillhas some interesting features. However, I disagree with many of thechoices made. I don’t believe that Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, VivienLeigh, Claudette Colbert, Grace Kelly, and Ginger Rogers should havemade the list. These are all great actors, but to me there are farsuperior actors such as Paul Robeson, Deborah Kerr, Gloria Swanson,Gloria Grahame, Sydney Greenstreet, Myrna Loy, William Powell, JeanArthur, Mary Astor, the three Barrymore siblings (John, Lionel, Ethel),Walter Huston, Richard Burton, Montgomery Clift, Bing Crosby, RosalindRussell, Olivia de Havilland, W.C. Fields, Bob Hope, Boris Karloff,Charles Laughton, Harold Llyod, Peter Lorre, Joel McCrea, FredricMarch, Vincent Price, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Thelma Ritter,Mickey Rooney, Jane Russell, Peter Sellers, Norma Shearer, FrankSinatra, Lana Turner and Natalie Wood. The bottom line, is that AFIshould have picked the top 50 actors and top 50 actresses instead of25. This way, many more legendary actors would have been included.

3) It’s a great documentary overall. Highly recommended.

I have a couple of problems with the list though. I know I am going toget a lot of complaints for this one, but Audrey Hepburn is a littlebit too lofty. I love her a lot, don’t get me wrong. She may be aninfluential person outside of the theatre, however, her actingabilities are no where close to those directly above and below her.Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Ingrid Bergman, Greta Garbo had so muchmore depth. Aside from "Wait Until Dark", Audrey Hepburn movies showednothing substantially different from what she is in real person. GaryCooper, doing the same thing, got ranked 11th because he is on screenwhat he is in real life. Audrey Hepburn then, in all objectivity, be atthe same rank.

Along the same logic, I disagree with the disparity in the placement ofJames Dean and Marilyn Monroe. They essentially did the same thing:through their death, their 15-minutes of fame transformed into aperpetual legacy. While I respect that, I think it’s strange that Deangot a 18th rank while Monroe got a 6th rank.

Lastly, this is strictly out of my own opinion, but I think with AudreyHepburn out of the top 5, the remaining 4 should switch places. The twoSwedish ladies ought to be #1 and #2 while Katharine Hepburn and BetteDavis are placed as 3 and 4. My reasoning is that we pay money to seemovie actors act. The two verbs in the latter part of that sentence are"see" and "act". All four of them had tremendous depths and breadth, sothere isn’t much of a difference in terms of acting ability. The otherverb, however, makes a difference. We pay money to see aesthetics onscreen. While Katharine Hepburn and Bette Davis turns the script intomagic, they’re not as aesthetically pleasing as the two Swedes. (Thedocumentary itself even goes on for a while to say how Bette Davisisn’t the prettiest of all actresses.) We pay to see beauty, secondonly to acting ability. And I believe that should be the reason whyIngrid and Greta should be the top two actresses of all time. (Not tomention their INTERESTING private lives that was also a factor indeciding the rankings. I mean, how many actors can claim braggingrights to a Senator denouncing them for adultery on the Congressionalfloor? Or forcing studio executives to fire Lord Laurence Olivier justto get their ex-lover a role in a film?)

Along the same logic mentioned above, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewartshould be 1 and 2 while Bogart should be 3.

Overall, it is a great documentary, go buy it and watch it.

"Under The Sea" From The little mermaid and "A Whole new world" fromAladdin, and songs from Bambi " April Showers", As well as songs fromDumbo like "When I see an Elephant Fly", The Star Wars, The Lord of therings, and The Phantom Of The Opera (although recent they could put itin there if they re-due the show). Those soundtrack’s should have gotmentioned. just to name a few. Those Disney Songs were and still areextremely popular songs and I was irritated at the fact that theyweren’t in this show. I hope they re-due this show with maybe moresongs in it. I liked John Travolta hosting it, that was awesome!! Ithink it actually needed more of Travolta in it too.

2) I’m a 16 year old resident of Canada, and music is a big part of mylife. Many of the songs featured in this countdown of the top 100 bestmovie songs are songs that I had already heard before. Many of those Iknew some lyrics. Even if the show lasted about three hours, it wasworth listening to. A lot of great songs were selected to be among thetop 100 and I would say the choice was excellent.

I may be young, but there are some old classics that should be a partof every generations’ repertory, and this special TV show showcasedsome of the best songs I have heard in my whole life.

It is really nice to be able to share the songs along with my motherand this is really a must-see show. Adults a well as teenagers and evenyounger kids will enjoy singing along to the songs they know and love.

I hope they will broadcast it again!

Surnatural_chick

3) When it appeared on British TV I came in on song number 26 so I missedan awful lot but having seen the 26 I am now determined to get thewhole show. John Travolta as the host was made for the part and hisexit to the music from his film was great. The people who commented onthe individual songs were very good indeed, genuine and sincere inthere comments and well known in their own right ie Andy Williams PaulSimon Art garfunkel etc and there comments were spot on. The whole 26 Isaw were a pleasure to hear, Singing in the rain ole man River WhiteChristmas and of course Somewhere over the Rainbow were just an exampleof the sheer quality of the contents of this programme. The hard partnow is finding the whole programme any suggestions.

4) AFI’s 100 Years 100 Songs was a great show to watch and sing alongwith. I did wish Travolta had a bigger part with more introductions, hedid not even say anything about his personal entry of "Summer Nights"from "Grease". I was also expecting him to make comments on his idol ofJames Cagney and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" being his favorite film as achild. But having Bette Midler and Barbara Streisand making commentswas so Awesome, they are amazing women who can sing and act. LizaMenelli would have been a great addition as well but her sister wasgreat, but only commenting on mother Judy Garland. Of course one couldhave picked Judy Garland and "Over The Rainbow" as number one from thestart but all the songs and comments from 100 to 1 was great fun towatch.

5) I saw this program a few months ago, and was absolutely delighted. Somany fantastic songs from so many fabulous movies. There were somesongs I wanted to see there, like "A Whole New World", and also "TheMorning After" (The Poseidon Adevnture), but all in all I must admitthey made a pretty good list. Many of the songs I had never heardbefore, but fell in love with them after the program, like the songfrom Snow White, and Evergreen. It was also interesting to see how manysongs Barbra had on the list. What an amazing artist.This is he kind ofprogram you can watch over and over again. Personally, I wouldn’t mindhearing more of each song, but guess the program would then be too long:( And Audrey… What a beautiful actress, and also a very very goodsinger. Outstanding!

6) I loved this special,this list was much better than their Heroes andVillains list."Singin’ in the Rain","Old Man River","Wind Beneath MyWings","Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend","9 to 5","SummerNights","Somewhere Over The Rainbow","Stayin’ Alive","I Had The Time ofMy Life","Beauty and The Beast","I Will Always love You","The Sound ofMusic","Footloose","Love Lift Us Up Where We Belong","All ThatJazz","Puttin’ on the Ritz","New York New York","Hakuna Matata","BornTo Be Wild","Jailhouse Rock","That Oldtime Rock n Roll" were all greatpicks for this list.I was pleasantly surprised they included "RainbowConnection" from The Muppet Movie.

But there were a few songs that should’ve been listed.Where were "TheTime Warp" from Rocky Horror Picture Show,"Ghostbusters","Don’t You"from The Breakfast Club,"You’re the One That I Want" from Grease,thetheme of the Godfather,any of the Beatles’ songs,"You’re a Mean One Mr.Grinch","Under The Sea" from Little Mermaid?

Overall it was great but I still think some of these other songsshoulda made it.