2) Marta, a lonely woman, take with her Augusto e Antonio to scour the whole city for a whole day, looking for something absurd: pigeons turning into men or she will die.

2) Terribly tedious and hopelessly unfunny film about three pranksters (proudlyidentified as such during the opening credits) strolling down the streets ofFlorence. Thats all they do. They walk a bit, they talk a lot and they pullpranks on each other and on passers by. One of them is a crazy woman with apigeon obsession, the second a crude unshaven slob and the third a mama’sboy. One ‘memorable’ montage features them pinching the behind of everybodyelse who passes by. That’s about as funny as it gets. Not even the beauty ofFlorence can save this.

Two of these practical jokers sport unsightly early Eighties perms while allthree of them wear nauseating fashion statements from that era. On top ofthis we are constantly treated to a voice over by a disc jockey who puts onsome of the most horrible pop music ever performed. Naturally the stupid pigeon fetish culminates with a totally unrelatedfantasy sequence and a hideous electronic fanfare. There is no point tryingto fast forward to the good bits since there are none to befound.

Zero out of ten

My Grade: B+

Blue Underground DVD Extras: Poster and Stills Gallery; and TheatricalTrailer

Eye Candy: blink and you’ll miss tiny boobies courtesy of Jussara

2) This is a truly great caper in the RIFIFI tradition, with plenty of twistsand surprises, spectacularly high-tech (for its day) action set pieces andglamorous location work in Rio de Janeiro, Rome and around the world. Manyother capers since THE GRAND SLAM have borrowed shamelessly from it –ENTRAPMENT being the latest that springs to mind — but, trust me, this onedid it better than the rest all the way to its uncompromising, un-Hollywoodending. This is the one to catch if it’s ever around again!

3) What a brilliant caper movie! Before I go on, though, I need to pointout that this movie is a reworking of the movie Rififi (1954)–a Frenchcaper movie. While Rififi generally gets higher marks among critics, Imuch preferred this one.

The movie is unusual in that it has such a multinational cast and quitea bit of the movie is dubbed because of this. This didn’t matter to saythe least. However, it was interesting to see Adolfo Celi in the movie.He was the lead villain in Bond’s THUNDERBALL and in this movie hisvoice is dubbed with a totally different voice and so he sounds a lotdifferent.

Now on to what I loved–the complicated and exciting plot. It justkeeps you guessing again and again–even up until the last scene. Also,the acting was great and the characters were well-written–everyoneseemed to be at the top of their form.

So, if you want a movie about a gang of thieves pulling the ultimateheist and want to see the best, give this film a try–if you can findit, as it’s not exactly a well-known flick.

4) Released in the USA by Paramount as GRAND SLAM in the late sixties, thisslickly-made heist film is a first-rate effort exploiting the Jules Dassinclassic, RIFIFI.The all-star international cast is exceptional, with Klaus Kinski being thestandout. One of the best of it’s kind, and still enjoyabletoday.Ennio Morricone wrote the eclectic score, featuring some catchy bossa-novatunes to complement the location. Thanks to Image Entertainment, thepicture is now available on DVD in a widescreen version to capture all theexcitement! Check it out.

5) I would be difficult for me to say enough good things about this movie.The Itallians came make a movie like no one else. This is a verystylistic heist movie. It co-stars the b movie hero, Klaus Kinski. Thescore was done by Ennio Morricone. What more could you ask for? This istruly outstanding example of the Itallian crime sub-genre. All theelements that make a movie of this type entertaining are present inspades: over the top schemes, gadgets, one-liners, and car chases. Ihave heard many of Enni Morricone's scores, but the opening piece isone of his best. Over the past few years, Blue Underground re-releasedsome great, obscure movies. Watch this.

6) Throughout the world, men with money and those without have created agame which for all practical purposes will never end. Those with wealthseek to design a box which will keep their valuables safe. Thosewithout money then seek to break the box of riches even if it's againstthe law or if it's dangerous. Hopefully the 'box-makers' willeventually come up with a fool-proof design which will keep the thievesout. That is the premise of the film called " Grand Slam." Edward G.Robinson is Prof. James Anders a mild mannered school teacher who afteryears of research has discovered the 'perfect crime.' for stealingvaluable diamonds worth millions. Secure that he has a fool proofscheme, he visits an old mafia friend, Adolfo Celi is Mark Milford andasks for a special team of professionals. The men chosen include RobertHoffmann who plays Jean-Paul Audry a world re-known playboy and suavelady-killer who will meet his match in a cold, dispassionate secretary(Janet Leigh) with a secret. Klaus Kinski is Erich Weiss a military manwho does not quit a job until it's conquered. Riccardo Cucciolla isAgostino Rossi and George Rigaud is Gregg, professionals in their ownright. Together they accept the challenge of what is a deemed anunbreakable, thief proof safe. called the " Grand Slam 70 " series. Afilm which has become a favorite of many E.G. Robinson fans. ****

7) Been spreading the word around the neighborhood about this forgottencultural curiosity like a virus! The amount of clichés and stereotypesin this piece make the entire thing hilarious and a good deal of fun towatch. Rio becomes this absolutely exotic venue, with non-stopcarnivals and pageants, strange folk a galore and people who go by thename of "Stetuaka" (?!?!) – believe me, I have been born, raised andlived a good part of my life in Rio and have never, ever known anyoneby the name of Stetuaka (played simply by one "Jussara" – may theAlmighty bless her whoever she is!). But, and this is the main point ofinterest and solely for this I give it a ten, there are someexceptional external takes that give us a very good glimpse of Rio deJaneiro when it was still a breathtaking city and an incredible placeto live (and not the violent, crime-infested & decadent urban disasterit is today) – excellent shots from the pre-expansion Copacabana Beach,Downtown, the Pavãozinho Slum and, most amazingly, a still pristineBarra da Tijuca, a very far cry from the horrendous scenario it has nowbecome. For those of us, who live here or know Rio, a very nostalgicpiece, not to be missed. Oh, yes, almost forgot…there's also somesort of a loosely built plot, about a heist around a handful ofdiamonds, but that's really secondary, of nil interest.

Rififi is a great movie, and like most great movies; it's oftenimitated, although unlike films such as The Exorcist, Jaws and Alien;the Rififi imitations are usually quite good. The field is lead byJean-Pierre Melville's masterpiece 'The Red Circle', but following hoton its heels is this excellent little Italian thriller. Grand Slammixes an intricate plot, interesting characters and a bucket load ofstyle and the result is a film that constantly thrills and entertains.The plot follows the fortunes of a varied group of criminals broughttogether to carry out a daring robbery. Schoolteacher James Andersnotices a chance in Rio de Janeiro to steal ten million dollars indiamonds and contacts his friend who gets in touch with severalspecialists to carry out the job. Aside from the obvious safe crackers,they also recruit a tried and tested womaniser to steal a key from asecretary. Everything is put into place for the robbery to go to plan,but naturally there are more twists and turns in store for thieves todeal with.

Grand Slam is an Italian film but features a host of internationaltalent, including Hollywood performers Edward G. Robinson and JanetLeigh acting alongside cult stars such as Klaus Kinski, Robert Hoffmannand Adolfo Celi. The cast comes together very well and it's thanks tothe great performances that this film works so well. Director GiulianoMontaldo keeps things ticking over nicely and the build up to the heistis always interesting. Naturally given the film's influences; the heistitself is a timed and careful (also wordless of course) affair thatkeeps the audience on the edge of their seats. The Rio de Janeirosetting provides some lovely locations and the film does look very niceon the whole. With the focus being on the plot, you can expect sometwists in the tale and Grand Slam certainly does no disappoint in thatrespect as the film features a great twisted ending that fits what wentbefore it very well indeed. Overall, Grand Slam is an excellent heistflick that more than does the classic French film that influenced itjustice. Recommended!

9) I think this is the best heist film ever made, surpassing its supposedinspiration, "Rififi". Fast pace, suspenseful and brilliantlyphotographed,it is a must see for all caper film buffs. The problem seems that no oneseems to know WHO owns the rights to Telecast this film. It would be greaton DVD too.

10) With it’s (usually) strong actors, bright locale/festival backdrop,plot twists, and array of gadgets, I thought this up-close heist filmwould have much more punch than it did.

The problems are simple- Characters and direction. With the exceptionof the always lit powder-keg Klaus Kinski, the rest of the cast handletheir roles with a collect-a-paycheck style of blandness. The same goesfor the the overall feel of the movie. There are many obvious points inthe film that should be tension-filled, but somehow, they elicitvirtually no reaction. Maybe it’s the long stretches of empty talk andpredictability between them that causes it.

At best, "Grand Slam" will barely pass as a rental when the otherchoices are few, which is too bad because it showed many traces ofpotential, but never capitalized on any of them.

7 out of 10

2) Although other reviews find this film to be quite accurate to theirexperience, I find it to be going to extremes. I too had this ritual,and have to say that it was not the worst nightmare come true.

The movie tells the story of freshmen students in university (ages18-*), but might as well be on students in so-called high-schools inBelgium (notably Antwerp, director Eric Van Looy’s favorite shootinglocation for movies, cfr Memory of a Killer, aka De Zaak Alzheimer). Itmore specifically tells the story on the side-activities of students intheir first few months on campus, but with a fatal outcome for one ofthem.

First off: yes, this is quite accurate on what happens on a ‘doop’ (orbaptizing; pronounced like "d’ ooh p") and a ’schachtenverkoop’ (orfreshmen-sale) in that respect that they are badly treated and scoldedor verbally abused. The concept of a sale of people to older baptizedstudents for beer (used later by the organizing club to throw partiesand help to finance the students club) is demeaning for those beingsold and is reminiscent of selling slaves in centuries gone by. Theyare sold to do everything (decent) for those who buy them for a week.This usually results in work around the house (dishes, washing of cars,clothing, apartments, bringing beer in bars, …). By no means thismeans inappropriate requests like sexual favors etc.

The next step is ‘den doop’, usually preceded by a ‘drill’, which isquite filthy for those involved. Depending on what club you join orwhat kind of studies they represent, this can go from milk, flower,eggs, ketchup, garlic eating, mud, animal blood and intestines andfaces (those studying for veterinarians), …

After this drilling part, you have the ‘doop’ itself. Depending on theclub, you are called one by one or in group on stage to do a smalltask. Some clubs have koekoek’s (mockingbirds,like in swiss wallclocks) that are placed on stage and every time the people in theaudience ask for it, must give the exact time or drink a full pint ofbeer ad fundum (=bottoms up). It never is correct, although some arequite accurate.

And the final stage in your freshmen year usually is ‘ontgroening’,where you get a spoon of salt on your tongue and need to drink a fullpint of beer (which reacts of course) after having recited some Latintext, pleading allegiance to the club.

While I studied in Antwerp itself from the year 1994-1995 up, thismovie was not accurate and not anything like what I’ve witnessed in myyears in the club (even as Praeses (head of the club) or in thePraesidium (chairmen of club)). In those years, I’ve witnessed over 30of these rituals, even in other clubs.

If you want to see this movie or are reading this review to know a bitabout a ’studentendoop’ in Belgium, or Flanders, or Antwerp, my adviceis that this always depends on what club you want to join or where inthe country. There are clubs in Antwerp that do NOT allow drinking ofthe praesidium during these activities (zero tolerance), some don’thave a sale, some do it all in one (short pain), but as far as I know,nobody has been banned from club activities because they weren’tbaptized, except for those 2 kind of activities involved with initiatedmembers: doop/ontgroening/verkoop and cantus.

The film is maybe inspired by some accidents that happened before. I amnot going to lie… people have died in less controlled times becauseof irresponsible or stupid ideas some people had, or people have gottenwounded or scarred for life, although these are far a minority. Thepractice is condoned, but not approved by most academic instances orthe local and countries government.

The story I believe Ad Fundum is founded on in part is the death of astudent in Antwerp a few decades ago, where someone was launched fromthe 3rd floor, wrapped in a few thick mattresses. A stupid deathbecause one can foresee that there is even a remote chance (even a lotmore than remote, namely: certain) that the person will die. That clubnowadays still is active, but it checks other baptizing and does notbaptize anyone anymore.

Other stories, going from lethal burns from being placed in a barrelwhere there used to be stored sulfuric acid in, and were badly cleanedI have not heard, although in the year I started, this was on ourcampus a fact (although the persons did not die) that had happened thatyear.

Bad uses or wanting to be ‘original’ or ’spectacular’, like usingstunt-fluids to drench someones pants in and later set on fire issomething you could ask yourself a why on (like happened with a certainMed-students club 5 years ago), and surely something you can see goingwrong (the flames of course did not stop on the bottom of the legs onthe outside, but shot back up on the inside as well.

Overall good performances of the actors, a bit worse on thecamera-work, but still a good movie. Just don’t take the story to betrue (anymore)?

3) I saw this movie for a second time on TV and it still hasn't lost itsbasic intensity. The contents have been extensively reviewed in othercontributions to this site. Although it may appear exaggerated tosomeone who is not familiar with local traditions, I can assure youthat these things did ( and probably still do in some cases) happenduring the so-called initiation of students here in Belgium. Althoughthis freshmen's ritual should be one of student-like inoffensive fun,it is often accompanied by a lurking form of menace as so many of ushave experienced.It is not the initiation as such that forms a realproblem but the attitude of those students who are in charge. One cannever really know what goes on in others and this apprehension towardshuman conduct in general is the main theme on which the movie isbased.All-round good acting performances and with Erik Van Looydirecting,one of the most competent directors this country has tooffer, little could have gone wrong.

4) This film is a nice film, well done, entertaining, but it shows a wrongimage about Belgian student "folklore".

This film shows a student club where freshmen are mistreated. Thebaptism is shown as an event at which freshmen have to drink too muchbeer and then are placed in dangerous situations.

This is not the spirit of student folklore. Normally at baptismsfreshmen don’t drink any beer, or just a little bit. Sometimes, just atthe end of the event there is a drinking contest, but that is when allis over, and it is voluntary.

At the end of the film !!!SPOILER!!! the message of the film is that itis okay to kill the leader of the student club. Really a ridiculousmessage.

I really respect the director very much. His latest film: "De zaakAlzheimer" is a wonderful film, but about this film I can only say itdamaged the reputation of student folklore, without any groundedreasons.

5) Ad Fundum (roughly translated: bottoms up!) is one of the last good Belgianmovies and successfully presents human drama and emotions in an accuratesetting. The film handles about the rites and `games’ first-year universitystudents undergo in order to become part of the exclusive group of adults…at least that’s the explanation Campus leaders give to it. Like it’s thecase in reality, these rites are nothing but an excuse to drink and actfilthy. A ‘nerdish’-student (excellently portrayed by Sven DeRidder) is theeasy target of leader Tom Van Bauwel and quickly becomes the casualty of adeadly accident. Since the victim was drunk and none of the other studentswas capable of giving a truthful testimony, the leaders are set free.But…friends of the dead student have an appropriate act of vengeance inmind.

The plot may sound a bit exaggerated, but it’s a lot more realistic than youmight think. Certainly around here, in Belgium. Like the other reviewermentioned already, the news regularly features stories about fraternitypranks gone wrong. The film Ad Fundum can depend on a solid Flemish cast anda talented director (Eric Van Looy recently became Belgium’s most famousdirector because of `De Zaak Alzheimer…this is still one of his firstmovies). The lifestyle of Belgian youth is terrifically portrayed andcynically questioned throughout the entire film. And last but not least…likeit’s traditional in Belgian cinema…there are a few stylishly shotsex-sequences starring beautiful woman. Recommended!

6) I guess everybody who has been a college student in Belgium (I don’tknow how it works in other countries), knows that he isn’t seen as’full’ by the older students until he has been ‘baptized’ by one of thestudent clubs. And no, that has absolutely nothing to do with religion,it is a tradition of initiation rites with only one intention and thatis to break a new student’s spirit completely by humiliating anddegrading him or her. That is done by all the students who have beenbaptized before and is in fact only an excuse to drink incredibleamounts of beer while doing to others what has been done to themselveswhile they were baptized. In case you still don’t know what thatexactly means, I suggest you watch this "Ad Fundum". It gives a goodidea of what it all looks like.

The movie tells the story of a group of students who go to college forthe first year. Immediately they are asked by the student club to tellwho wants to be a ‘real’ student and who doesn’t. Those who don’t wantto be part of all those filthy games can leave, but most of them stay,probably also out of curiosity. One of them is Sammy Raes, a ‘nerd’ whodidn’t go to college just to party, but also to get his diploma. Hebecomes a very easy target for the leader of the student club. And atfirst everything goes well. They drink a lot of beer, do some games,…the usual stuff. But than the seemingly innocent little games go alittle bit too far and Sammy gets killed. Since the victim was drunkand none of the other students was capable of giving a truthfultestimony, the leaders are free to go. The disappointment by Sammy’sfriends is huge, but they have a plan. They will take revenge in anappropriate way…

I already hear some of you think that all this must be wrong orexaggerated. No-one can be that stupid, certainly not the people whowill once form the elite of the country. Well, I’m afraid they are, orbetter they were. The last couple of years, most schools have made upsome very strict rules and regulations to make sure that accidents willno longer happen, but as always those regulations only came after someincidents already had happened. Take for instance the college where Istudied. A few years before I started there, someone died because theyhad put her in a barrel and poured out beer and all kinds of nastystuff over her head. That didn’t kill her of course, but the barrelfirst had been used to transport sulfuric acid and wasn’t cleanedproperly. The result: the little bit of acid that was left, reactedwith the rest and she was so heavily burnt that she died later on inhospital. Since than, the student club asks for one minute of silencebefore the start of every Cantus (a drinking party during which thepresidium (the leaders of the club) tell you when and how much todrink. In the meantime you sing typical student songs) in order tocommemorate her. ‘Lucky’ girl, no?

So, the story is more believable than you might think at first. Butthat’s not the only good thing about this movie. It was directed byErik Van Looy, the man who also made the, in my opinion, excellentmovie "De Zaak Alzheimer". I truly believe he is one of the bestdirectors that we have and this movie only proves that. It isn’tover-the-top dramatic, it all feels very realistic. That’s of coursealso thanks to the performances of the talented cast that he workedwith. I’m pretty sure that most people outside Belgium don’t know anyof them, but over here the names Jaak Van Assche, Tom Van Landuyt, AxelDaeseleire, Wim Opbrouck, Herbert Flack, Gene Bervoets… willcertainly ring a bell.

Overall, this movie certainly is worth a watch, thanks to the fine,realistic story and the good acting. It may not be a masterpiece, butin my opinion it certainly deserves a rating between 7/10 and 7.5/10.

7) "Ad Fundum" is a well-acted piece of drama, which I can appreciate fromtime to time. It just doesn't push a lot of boundaries in film-making.The script is pretty bland (some really unrealistic dialogues too), thedirection is promising but nothing more. At least the scenes where thestudents get baptised are entertaining, even though they're not thatrealistic. Perhaps the tradition is getting weaker, but nowadays thisbaptism is just something that needs to be done, like validating yourparking and filling in your taxes. Either way, about the movie, mostlyI just spent my time paying attention to the actors, who do their jobspretty well, especially Sven De Ridder as the lovable nerd. It's arecent thing that Michael Pas is not in every Belgian movie that getsmade, but you can tell why he was the star. Like any self-respectingBelgian movie, it comes with a hilariously gratuitous long sex scene.Which was pretty cool I guess. Not bad for a debute film, which itconveniently is.

Rather than a typical talking head affair, there is a nonstop flurry ofactivity and noise which is interjected by disassemblies of how the mediapervades the American experience and what is lost because of it. The filmbombards the viewer with hundreds of quick-cut segments of advertising thatare set to the music of the notorious band, negativland. If you are fondofnegativland, this is a MUST SEE. Obviously, the band was picked for thesoundtrack because they, too, concern themselves with the content of ourmedia, and its tendency to push for a culture of unchallenged, blandconsumerism.

But where the band tends towards humor, the movie is about the researchers’investigation. The combination of traditional research and negativlands’over-the-top style makes for a very engaging exploration of how Americanbehaviors are subconsciously guided by corporate concerns. Some people mayfind the movie’s style too hectic and/or scattered, but the post-MTVgenerations will certainly be equipped to watch this enjoyablecritique.

2) I was very glad to have other plans turned upside down so I could be gracedto see this film at the 2001 High Falls Film Festival in Rochester, NY,USA.I found that the dry, honest directing coupled with the documentary-stylecinematography tended to galvanize the film into my mind. It’s been about aweek now, and I still crisply recall scenes as if I had lived themmyself.

To elaborate, there are three things I think are key to making this film asgood as it is:

First, the entire feel of the picture is documentary-like. You’re presentedwith a chronology of events about a young woman living with heroinaddictionon the streets–I found it particularly remarkable that it does not beg forpity … it really doesn’t force any emotions at all, but simply offers thesubject matter honestly for the observation and judgment of the viewer.Unlike most directors of this and other charged subjects, RosemaryRodriguezchose to present the subject in an almost matter-of-factmanner.

Second … wait: for these last two points let me just say that I have noexperience whatsoever with heroin or any other drug, so my opinion istainted with copious ignorance…. Second, I was stunned at the realism of the drug use in the film. Ireally believed the people in the film were using heroin and that each ofthem responded in a manner consistent with how I thought they should.Therewasn’t even a hint of the fantasy world of drug use propagated by movieslike Reefer Madness.

Finally, Ana Reeder was amazing. There was not a frame of footage when Ithought I was watching an actress. I swear this girl was hooked on heroinand actually was living the life of her character. I am generallyfascinated by the craft of acting, but once in a while I am confronted witha scene like the climactic breakdown of Alix where it is beyond mycomprehension altogether how someone can possibly act that true to life butreally be acting.

3) The storyline is the type of thing you find on a Lifetime NetworkSpecial or a straight-to-television movie trying to warn about thedangers of drug addiction, but this movie goes so far beyond that. It’snot like it adds zany warped realities like Requiem for a Dream or ithas some sort of narration keeping the audience completely informedthat "this is what you should fear to be", it does everything so muchsimpler than that: It sits back and lets the actors eat the audience’scollective heart out.

The drama in this film is SO UTTERLY CONVINCING. The performances getfirst prize for portrayals that, even when you want to try and findsomething wrong with it (I’m guessing this film might be considered toosentimental by some), keep the drama serious and prominent, notallowing the audience to let go of their suspension of disbelief. If itwasn’t for the production quality, it would seem like this was adocumentary and these were real people. And it’s not just Ana andMichael, the two main characters, it’s everyone, from the boyfriends tothe crack addicts that have two seconds of screen time to everyone.

Secondly, the cinematography and editing are very well tuned toexcellence. This movie definitely has the feel of an independent film,but more than that it doesn’t have that "Look at me, I’m independent!"feel. Skewed angles and purposeful jump cuts exist stylistically in thefilm, but they come at the right times and are completely necessary,versus what tends to happen in a lot of independent cinema where thecamera becomes relatively self-conscious and goes places it needn’t.For example, the hand-held quality of this film is almost invisible,while some independent films tend to show off their independence viahand-held in a wannabe cinema-verite sort of conceit.

It’s disappointing that I haven’t heard anything about this filmbefore. I literally picked it up because it was the first movie on thefirst row of the first aisle to rent because I wanted to surprisemyself, and whadyaknow but it happened to be a real gem! I hope itbuilds a bigger audience because it deserves to be recognized.

–PolarisDiB

4) I believe this was a marvelous accomplishment which brought out thetruth of living on the streets. Rosemary Rodriguez experienced it so,no one can say that this is cliché. Not even in relating it to otherfilms in this genre. Alix’s character is a drug addict right? but webelieve her to have a grasp over it. that she is more than theaddiction. this is partly true. like the director said, "there’shumanity in everyone one of them". our belief at this point ispredetermined but vanishes with change. with her willingness to stayclean being severed by the acts of her conscious temptations and everyjunkie around her. we believe her to live two lives. a straight lifeand a drugged up life. as in when she’s playing with louie. kindacarefree, laughing. she, for the most part, separates herself from it,from the addiction, but she still has that guilt like when digna takesher picture with louie. even when she runs away from dignas place andpretends that she’s clean around her friends, shooting them off andswearing at them. then, a day later she’s back into her fix. thatdoesn’t happen a whole lot in other films. Wonderful cinematography andgreat performances that make this film very believable. This film isvery vivid and blunt with the characters addictions. It makes youcringe just seeing it. surely surreal. i like the directors use ofnarration from the main character’s point of view or the non-verbalnarration through what the character may be experiencing in their mind.What’s the difference between reality and fallibility. But there’s agood plot structure so it’s not just random. not predictable. sure asheck not. One event stirs off the next. there’s a sense of serenitythat the characters meet up with and it’s interesting how you seem slipout of it once again. some of it real serenity, some of it false. realheart wrenching. makes you feel for people who get involved with drugsand alcohol. how you’re not only responsible for yourself but others.makes you investigate your own crutches. makes you examine your ownlife. yup. so anyways. Go out and rent it today!

5) I can’t really say that I enjoyed this movie, considering the subjectnature…but it did make me think, and most importantly, feel.

Alix and Digna seem like two totally different people. Alix is a drugaddict. She lives on the streets of NYC and lives a daily life offinding money and a fix and a place to sleep – in that order, oftendoing shady things to accomplish them. Digna is a successfulphotographer who has a great boyfriend, a nice apartment and seems tobe rapidly advancing through her career.

Digna lives next door to someone that Alix gets high with and they knoweach other on a first-name basis. Soon, they both end up entering eachother’s worlds, and finding out just how similar their lives reallyare.

I feel like many of the scenes in this film are very realistic,especially the scenes of Alix on the street and how she lives her dailylife. I think Ana Reeder did a great job in those scenes, and must havedone quite a bit of research before playing this role.

I felt a little different regarding Michael Hyatt (Digna). Some of thescenes seemed a little shallow as far as acting – not enough depth intothe character. I don’t think this was mostly her fault though, I thinkthe script could have been better in some places, such as the sceneswith Digna and her boyfriend, Anthony (Nestor Rodriquez). I didn’t feellike they were much of a loving couple, just kind of bland and blah.

All in all though, this film is a very refreshing change from theover-acted, over-produced, high budget dramas that are out there. Themovement of the camera and angles made this film seem like you werewatching a documentary at times – which to me, is a good thing. Iapplaud the director, Rosemary Rodriquez, for taking a step to makethis film. She mentions in the featurette on the DVD that she didn’twant to glamorize drug addiction but show it for what it really is. Shedid a great job.

I felt like there was so much beauty in the scenes of the film – I lovewatching the streets of NYC, however, what goes on isn’t alwaysbeautiful. Very tragic. Rosemary Rodriquez has helped us to seehumanity on the streets.

6) This is a very realistic program that shows the serious risks to arecovering alcoholic/addict (even one who has had a long period ofsobriety), of not honestly dealing with all her true feelings duringher recovery, not going to regular AA/NA meetings, or not being able tocall a Sponsor during high-risk situations. It dramatically shows thatif that person doesn’t have a tight Relapse Prevention Plan, she has NOcontingency plan in place to help her maintain her sobriety. Inaddition, b/c she failed to have her RPP, she seriously risked herrecovery when she decided to help a person still in active addiction tostop her addictive behaviors. By having that person live with her, shefailed to take seriously the impact that it could have on her own lifeand recovery.

7) This well made and worthy first film by Rosemary Rodriguez is a mustsee film for anyone with a loved one, friend or interest in drugaddiction. It is moving, informative and interesting and obviously alabor of love and hard-won knowledge. Ana Reeder and Nestor Rodriguezshine brightly in a cast of great convincing actors that bring youalong into their story of pain, loss, redemption, and tragedy and hopeas believably and naturally as I’ve seen. And the story is honest, rawand strong. Rosemary Rodrigez really can handle the typewriter and anindie film crew. I started to watch this little masterpiece 3 monthsago on a houseboat with a beat up 17" TV and several noisy friends. Thebeautiful opening and music immediately cried out to me for a betterand more respectful viewing and I packed the DVD away in a Manhattanbound bag. Last night I finally had a good movie friend over and decentscreen and sound system and broke out Acts Of Worship. Both of us knowthe Lower Side of the the early 90’s and love great movies. This is awinner. Great Story. Great Visuals. Great Locations. Great Sound. GreatActing. Great Lean and Raw Directing.

Rent or buy a copy ASAP. Love your friends and family and share it withthem. Don’t let go of hope, don’t give up on truth. Be useful, actkindly and bravely, and see Acts of Worship.

This felt like MORE than a movie… it felt as if we had some sort ofporthole into the lives of REAL people living the life of real addictsin a real city. The acting in this movie was impeccable. The characterswere more than believable, they were so authentic that is was likewatching a reality show. The human emotions that would trail across thefaces and through the eyes of the characters followed by thedesperation for the next fix… the slow sinking to new lows… eachscene depicted the underworld that’s out there and the selfish butpathetic lifestyle and thought processes of the addict, played out totheir inevitable consequences. This movie was so real it hurt to watchit and various scenes have come back to haunt both my husband andmyself for several days after having watched it. An amazing portrayalthat maybe asks some questions but definitely has no answers only looksto us with empty eyes and open, shaky hands.

9) Although I was raised a Baptist, I no longer consider myself to bereligious. Not that I have a problem with religion; saying I am notreligious has about the same value for me as saying I am not blond. Ido not imply I have a problems with blonds. That said, I HATE beingproselytized to. I had heard that this was a great movie, but I was abit nervous about the title. Many movies justify their glamorizedportrayal of the drug world by trying to counter-balance with somewell-meaning but tiresome preaching of the evils of drugs. It’s likethe director wants to have his/her cake and eat it too, showing "thegood stuff" that sells movies while saving face with the parents of themovie’s viewers. BOY, was I wrong to ever suspect any kind of phony,preachy B.S. in this movie. The closest thing I have to a religion ismy honesty, which I cling to as dearly as a family jewel. Therefore,when I say this is the most honest film I have ever seen, I mean it. Icannot reveal the real reason the movie is called "Acts of Worship"without spoiling the ending. But I can say without reservation thatthis is the most remarkable, believable and honest film about the drugworld I have ever seen. I have seen many of the genre: "Requiem for aDream", "Trainspotting", "Traffic", "Drugstore Cowboy", and countlessothers. Watching this movie was in and of itself like an "act ofworship", because my reverence for honesty in film-making was soprofoundly embraced. Thank you Rosemary, Ana and Michael, for giving methis gift.

P.S. Michael, I thought it totally sucked when The West Wing did notkeep the Angela character. I was glad to finally see a believablecharacter on my favorite show. Please come back!

10) one of the best movies i’ve ever seen that deals with addiction- itspainful and heartbreaking, but real… it is truth and doesn’tglamorize ‘using’ like many movies do… i thank Ms. Rodriguez forbringing such an amazing movie to the screens and letting her ownexperiences and visions be seen. i thought the story was well done- shehas an amazing way of portraying the main characters, and the way theytend to mesh together towards the end and take on different roles ishard but truth..our vulnerabilities .. it is so great to finallyexperience hope and success one day but it can be lost in an instant..fear is powerful.. I feel this director just really captured the truthof addiction and the struggles of being in it and the struggles thatoccur once sober and the fear s that can arise and bring you right backthere… i thank her for writing this and i HIghly recommend!

The problem is that many movies are an experience between the filmmakerand us, and often that filmmaker is following a set of urges he or shedoesn't fully understand by sees and trusts. Sometimes, hearing fromthe filmmaker outside the film expands on that experience, but itsoften the case that the filmmaker is making up a story that soundsgood. These are storytellers after all, and they'll want to spin ametastory that supports sales, or their own legend.

And as often, the filmmaker will say something that is actually amatter of concern but not central to the art. Very rarely will you findan artist of any stripe who knows what he is about and why — and why itmatters to us. Cronenberg is more of an intuitive, but I have heard himspeak about his work in terms that is both interesting andilluminative. Not so much about the art himself, but his motivationsand what satisfies.

This film is a movie made by his wife during the shooting of what Iconsider a failure: "History of Violence." It features all sorts of"home movie" shots of people involved in their craft, actors ruminatingon what they are doing, and David in the act of setting up shots.

Well, I suppose it is something to learn that he doesn't storyboard.But the problem is that what we get is mostly from people whocontribute to the thing but don't understand the thing — apparentlydon't have the will or matter to understand. So we just get drivel.

Worse, as with most of these, we get the actors speaking. Actors arefine in my book, and I do wonder about how they do their craft. But itsnot in an actor's portfolio to understand the grand composition — theyjust have different, often conflicting concerns. They live in differentworlds.

Maria Bello is quite adequate in what she does here. But in real life,she's a nitwit, and anything she says about this film detracts ratherthan adds. I recommend you watch the film, and ignore this "extra" onthe DVD.

Ted's Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do withthis part of your life.

• Continuity: Lance Cooper’s dirty shirt is clean by the time he jumps down from the tree.

Cast of no-names with the exception of one time leading lady MariaConchitaAlonzo, who is by far stuck in the worst script of her career. The bankrobbery scene is great, the dialogue, the constant "grunts and groans"fromall the cast. It’s just plain bad!!

2) The bad guys are all out to kill the government’s star witness — thedefendant’s wife — before she can testify. Her protection? The usual(inthese kinds of films) FBI agent pretending to be the dutiful automatonbutnot quite able to pull it off because he’s human underneath it all. Whatsets this film apart is the sharp tongue-in-cheek writing (FBI agents arereferred to as "Zimbalists", for instance) and above all, Maria ConchitaAlonso’s show stealing performance as the wisecracking, emotional lead.Yeah, she’s lovely and sexy, but mostly she’s a fine and underratedactress(check her out in the drama "Caught"). A highly entertaining film.

3) As the movie begins, Eva Ramirez (former Miss Teen World Maria ConchitaAlonso) is picked up by two federal agents who need her to appear in courtto testify against her mob boss ex-husband. Unbeknown to the agentsthere’strouble afoot, and this conventionally routine task is made nearlyimpossible by a band of cumbersome misfits out to see that Miss Ramirezdoesnot make her court date. They quickly finish off one of the agents, andspend the rest of the movie trying to get to Miss Ramirez. Much to theirfrustration, their plans are thwarted time and again by the second agent,the thrifty Lance Cooper (Matt McColm). This is an action film for actionfans. This is the epitome of an action film, and doesn’t pretend to beanything else. From credits to credits this is a bullet ballet (if I mayborrow the catchy phrase from director Shinya Tsukamoto), almostrelentlessly involving the protagonists in a chase, near death experience,or just an old-fashioned shootout. Matt McColm is great as a B-actionstar,and the comedy (attempted) of Miss Ramirez bounces of his stoic demeanorvery effectively. It’s not going to win an Oscar, but if you want to sitdown to an action film, this would be a solid place to start. Rating:28/40

4) The bad guys are all out to kill the government’s star witness — thedefendant’s wife — before she can testify. Her protection? The usual(inthese kinds of films) FBI agent pretending to be the dutiful automatonbutnot quite able to pull it off because he’s human underneath it all. Whatsets this film apart is the sharp tongue-in-cheek writing (FBI agents arereferred to as "Zimbalists", for instance) and above all, Maria ConchitaAlonso’s show stealing performance as the wisecracking, emotional lead.Yeah, she’s lovely and sexy, but mostly she’s a fine and underratedactress(check her out in the drama "Caught"). A highly entertaining film.

5) For a woman on the run for her life, she sure is a big mouth. The filmmakers were trying to make this character funny, but instead, it was justannoying.

But hey, it’s movie, you can make it as unrealistic as youwish…

6) "Acts of Betrayal", a typical B action flick, tells of a macho FBI agent(McColm) who spends the entire film killing bad guys as he protects afederal witness (Alonso) from a small army of hitmen. The film has littlegoing for it but does manage some par or better firefights and akinda-sortafun relationship between the stalwart and silent agent and the alwaysjabbering, ever sassy Alonso character. For action junkiesonly.

7) "Acts of betrayal" directed in John Woo style. Strained plot. Endlessgunshots. About actors play I can say that Matt McColm acted well, butMariaConchita Alonso not very well. Her character was too talkative. And it’slittle irritated me. Matt McColm acted a laconic FBI agent who must toprotected a very important witness. During the movie assassins constantlywere after them. But Matt McColm’s character always found exit fromdifficult situations. I think that’s all what can I say about "Acts ofbetrayal".

2) The inspiring part of this film was that it was made on $700 – but itreally showed. Seeing 'The Actress' made me realise that digitaltechnology in cinemas looks like student film-making – it looked reallyamateur and hindered the acting performances. Steve McCall saved thefilm with his performance of character Kevin. The plot was prettyunoriginal and predictable, and wasn't executed very excitingly.However, hats off to Zilditch for the minuscule budget and managing toget a film quality enough to be accepted into film festivals. I wonderthough if it has been used as just the 'token digital film' for failureof finding a better one. Also, wanking jokes are not that funny.

3) "The Actress" is definitely a "no frills" film – apparently made forjust a few hundred dollars and, frankly, it looks like it. But, it alsoserves up an assured piece of storytelling from a young director (ZakHilditch)and vibrant and appealing performances from a novice cast.Maybe the pace flags a little from time to time, but there are manymemorable scenes as the comic/dramatic tension generally ratchets upthroughout the film. If you’re looking for grand production values,look elsewhere – but if you enjoy edgy, contemporary (and very funny)performance-based films give "The Actress" a go. As the othercommentary on this site also mentions, Steve McCall’s performance is awonderful (and realistically grounded)comic turn. And Zak Hilditch’sdirection suggests there are even better things to come in the future.To come clean, I do know the filmmakers – but this is an honestappraisal: "The Actress" is an entertaining piece of no-budgetfilm-making, it is authentically Australian in many respects and thereare lots of moments when – as we Aussies are wont to say – it’s asfunny as buggery!

4) It’s hard to believe a film like this can be made on just 700 bucks.Don’t let the budget put you off! This is a great little movie!Excellent all round, performances,set design, script & story..Arefreshing change for Aussie cinema. It’s Australian with out beingocker, the characters are actually believable and three dimensional.The tone of the acting is understated, (the best kind, and the hardestto achieve). This film deserves a release in Australia. A bit sad thatit was recognized at such a high level in the US (Slamdance) where itpicked up distribution and not here in Australia as yet..DirectorHilditch is an Australian director with something to offer.