• The man behind the bar where the main character and his friend go for beers is the real-life barman of that venue.

Intense, coltish Vincent Bonillo is Alex, an anti-globalisationactivist based in the French- speaking part of Switzerland. Along withhis colleague Fred (Francois Nadin), he has developed a computer viruswhich is intended to wreak havoc on the ‘WLS’ (World Leader Summit), amajor intergovernmental conference about to be held in nearby Gstaad.At a crucial stage in the plan, however, Alex is injured in acar-accident. He wakes up with memory-loss, and consents to anexperimental treatment designed to stimulate the damaged sections ofhis brain. This produces disorienting results – and also brings Alex toquestion who, if anyone, can be trusted. And to wonder what, exactly,is going on.

The viewer is placed firmly in Alex’s shoes – and we’re forced to payattention as flashbacks and nightmarish dreams mount up, criss-cross:Alex’s memories, fears and actual experiences blend into network ofrepeated scenes, images, lines, characters. This car, that shower, thatpub. He (and we) keep spotting a certain woman with a dog – innocentpasser- by, or sinister avatar of a vast, omnipotent conspiracy?

Wyder – who co-wrote the script with Yves Mugny and Maria Watzlawick -nudges Absolute into mild sci-fi territory, keeps at least one foot inthe real, topical world (the World Leader Summit guestlist features thelikes of Tony Blair) keeps the pace cracking along, keeps us on ourtoes, all the way through to the head-spinningly brave finale (easilythe film’s most impressive and memorable sequence). Denis Jutzeler’scinematography, meanwhile, is a series of unfussy but chilly DV images,shimmering with the frisson of a firewall facing breach.

Neil Young

2) Solid and well acted thriller but too derivative to earn a higherrating than 6 stars. The time-warp technique has been shown recently inMomento and Irreversible and is also used to good effect here. The leadactor, Vincent Bonillo, is from the minimalist school of acting with avery limited range and comes across as rather wooden. Fortunately he isplaying opposite the attractive Irene Godel who brings some life to themovie.

A young political activist decides to put his money where his mouth isand plant a virus in the network of the Swiss interbank clearing house.The plan is to threaten the security of the interbank network and tryto get the up and coming WLS (World Leaders Summit) conferencecanceled. An irritant at the end is the needless killing of the IreneGodel character – in fact she is part of the conspiracy and couldsimply have been returned to the hospital research department fromwhence she came.

2) Once you’ve accepted that you’re not going to watch an episode of_AbsolutelyFabulous_, you will enjoy this film. The two actresses are hilarious andthespiritand the decadence of the series is totally present. This film is veryentertaining: Iwasn’t bored for one second!

3) As a big fan of the original series, I was quite pleased when I heard thatthere was a movie about Edwina and Patsy. Well, the truth is: that moviereally sucks! It’s poorly written, and Jennifer Saunders IS Edwina,there’sno one who could ever fill her shoes…

The only thing that worth a look is that guy, Jonathan… damn, the boy iscute!

4) The film is a remake in the French Language of an English Comedy seriescalled Absolutely Fabulous. You cannot translate the humour of theoriginalseries into another language and to even envisage it was a total andutterwaste of time. Imagine translating "Fawlty Towers" into French, GodForbid !It’s no more possible than translatine Amélie Poulain or Louis de FunèsintoEnglish ! I cannot see any sane person in the world appreciating one iotaofthis film. It was a total bore from beginning to end and should neverhavebeen made. I have seen both actresses in other films where they weresuperb,but they must have been really hard up for money if they were willing tomake a piece of crap like this !

5) I only went to see this movie because I had the feeling it wouldsuck.And I was right, the gags are really lame, and Josiane Balasko as Edina isawful. The original tv series was actually great, but this is a terriblemovie, really really awful.

Here’s a tip, don’t go see this movie.

6) I loved the tv show, and didn’t feel like to go and check this one – butsince I wasn’t paying (that’s a long story). Well still, I really wasfurious with that lousy piece of painful comedy. It’s not funny, it’spathetic, sinister, and boy what a bore. That’s it.

7) This is a French remake of the fabulous eponymous British TV series. Theadaptation is successful as the director and the cast never betray thespirit of the TV hit. Aghion, the director, has chosen gags from variousepisodes and has gathered them together in a coherent screenplay. It looksan extended version of an episode of the series. It doesn’t bring anythingnew for the fans of ab fab. With this movie adaptation, the director’s aimis to reach a wider audience (we have to keep in mind that the Britishseries is cult in France, but not really famous). Fortunately, the film isas trash as on TV, and therefore really funny. Balasko and Baye perfectlyembody the 2 demented alcoholic fashion victims and as far as I amconcerned, I kept laughing from the beginning till the end. Not fabulous,but close to.

This is one of the breathtakingly funniest, hilarious movies I’ve everseen. Both Nathalie Baye and Josiane Balasko are great, their act neverfails to induce laughter; the situations are unique and fresh. It ishard to say which episode I liked most, since they are all equallygood. Seldom do you find a movie in which humor is spread so evenlythroughout the whole script. There is only one thing this movie leavesto be desired: it should be more widely marketed and promotedworld-wide. If you have a chance, do not hesitate to rent and watch it- you won’t regret it, unless, of course there is something terriblywrong with your sense of humor!

2):
In the year 2007 80% of human society is destroyed. The Survivors are depending on a medicine called “absolon”. When a police officer examines the case of a murdered scientist, who was developing a permanent antidote for the virus-based disease, he discovers a conspiracy. While his mighty opponents believe that he himself is carrying the antidote inside his blood a hunting-party is getting after him. Only his partner and a female virus-doctor seem to back him up. But in whom can he trust?

3):
In the year 2007, a plague has wiped out half of the world’s population, a cure to the plague was found. The only way to stay alive, everyone on Earth must now take a corporation manufactured drug called “Absolon” without it everyone will die. Norman Scott is a police detective who has been assigned to investigate the assassination of a scientist who was working on a cure to the plague. Uncovering a conspiracy involving the murdered scientist and the drug “Absolon”, Scott finds himself the target of a group of assassins, when he learns he is carrying the cure. On-the-run with one of the scientist’s colleges Claire, Scott learns the assassins are working for Murchison, the corporate head of the corporation that manufactured the Absolon drug who wants the cure for himself. Can Scott expose the conspiracy? and will the cure he’s carrying save the human race?

• David Barto’s first studio film.

• Continuity: Near the end of the movie, when Scot and Walters fight, there is a short sequence of Scot without his jacket before he actually takes it off.
• Revealing mistakes: Obvious stunt double when the two leads jump off of a bridge and into a moving truck.
• Continuity: When Davis shoots at the police officers, she fires 18 shots, but the Desert Eagle she is holding can only carry 8 to 9 bullets in a magazine.

• Factual errors: When Scott turns on the gas in Greer’s apartment, he turns the valve perpendicular to the pipeline. That would actually turn a gas line off. The valve handle must be parallel to the pipeline to be in the on position.
• Revealing mistakes: During a scene involving a high-speed car chase, Kelly Brook’s character leans out of a car’s front passenger window to shoot at a pursuing vehicle’s tire. A stationary object, probably a building, is reflected in the car’s rear passenger window.

The direction is awful, I’m sure half of the people that read this, ifnot more, could make a better movie. Barto uses some of the mostridiculous editing techniques I’ve ever seen, including an incrediblyobnoxious fast-forward/slo-mo combination that hurts my eyes every timeit comes on screen. Even worse than the direction is the music. It’sone thing to have the John Carpenter-esquire simplistic synth score,it’s quite another to try to make it sound complex. The score wasobviously recorded entirely on a synthesizer on "Strings" setting toemulate an orchestra, and the effect is hilarious, giving every secondof music in the film a Casio Keyboard quality. This is not the onlyproblem with the sound, however, as I swear there was one point in achase sequence when Brook moved her mouth as if speaking and no speechaccompanied it.

One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and maybe THE worst, but I’mgiving it 3/10 because it is unintentionally funny to the point ofactually being watchable all the way through, if only to wait for thenext misstep.

2) The biggest mystery about ABSOLON is how the filmmakers managed to get 33people to register and then give the film a perfect "10" score. It’sridiculous, of course, and I’m willing to bet even star Christopher Lambertwould agree.

ABSOLON is yet another low-budget film with minimal resources, and yet itseems unaware of this fact since the movie is set "sometime in the nearfuture". I.e. Things are just similar enough that the filmmakers can get by,but there are differences such as a VR and an artificial intelligencecomputer that lets us know it’s "the future". Of course the VR only shows upin the first 3 minutes, and the artificial intelligence computer isbasically a woman talking through a speaker.

ABSOLON is not an awful movie, but it is a bad movie. It’s basically astring of cliches and "Evil Corporation" formulas thrown into scenes ofLambert dodging assassins led by a cheesy Lou Diamond Phillips, now tryingto make himself the King of Low-Budget Cheesy Villains.

Skip this film.

3 out of 10.

3) You don´t have to ask too much from a low budget movie like this. It iswhatit is, as the oracle would say, and there are some interesting and funnymoments on it. The script is not great, that´s true but i liked thedirecting and most of the cast. What was the budget in this flick? 3, 4million… not enough for this kind of story with gunfire, carchases…Thefirst half of the movie works, then… well the script is not thatgreat.Thedirector was an storyborad artist and a designer before -I saw Sussus, hisanimated short film,and I loved it- like many other filmmakers like JamesCameron… and I´m not saying this guy could be him but anybody out thereremembers Piranha 2? I like to see what this director can do with a biggerbudget and a better script. And seriously, it does not matter if thedirector is british, chinese of spanish… the script is the script. Ididn´t like the soundtrack too much but it wasn´t that bad. Ron perlman isbrilliant and Kelly Brook, gorgeous. Lou Diamond Phillips is very funny. Ilike it.

4) it’s too bad the dialogue was so laughable because the subject matteris no "conspiracy theory from Pluto". i’d like to see what the directorcan do with a bigger budget on the same topic. i think we Need movieslike this that tell it like it mostly and astonishingly is. withChristopher Lambert i sometimes have to shake my head to remember thathe is classically trained. well, at least he’s working. Lou DiamondPhilips seldom takes himself too seriously and i liked him in thismovie. and Kelly Brook! beautiful woman. Hellboy is a favorite of minetoo and it’s nice to see him with his real face. i suspect most peoplewont like this film, but i did. except for the dumb dialogue.

5) My University has an on campus shop that rents DVDs I rented this movieto watch over my Labor Day weekend because I love science fiction filmsand the storyline seemed interesting.

The writing is terrible, everyone seems to be speaking in a flat toneof voice that is good for public radio, but really bad for ascience-fiction action film. At some points during the time the actorslips are moving, but no sound is coming out. The film does bring upsome interesting themes — AIDS virus, poverty, greedy big business –but the horrible writing means that the film is less exciting then ifthey had all simply read instructions on how to install my DVD playerin ten different language.

The acting is a mixed bag. I enjoyed Chris in the first Highlander filmand in Mortal Kombat I. The black police chief, the second scientist todie and the semi-punk rock female partner [Ruth?} were three unknownactors that had talent, if only the script would let them show it off.Chris’s female love interest has no acting talent whatsoever and shouldconsider legal action against who promised to teach her how to act.

6) I watched this movie mainly because of the actors that were in it,namely Lambert, Perlman, Philips. The plot is not entirely original(which ones are?) but interesting in detail and certainly good enoughto support a good movie. Had the budget been bigger, this move couldhave been so much more. Fight sequences are the worst part – silly andunbelievable. If you removed most of them the movie would be muchbetter. The cast are mostly good actors but the script and otheraspects of the movie let them down – they mostly do the best they canwith what they have been given. Lou Diamond Philips would have had moreimpact if he had toned down his performance – its too over the top. Itend to blame the script/director for this rather than the actor. Hecertainly has the looks and talent to play a great bad guy – but hesnot great here. Of the three name actors he comes out worse. (If youwant to see what he can really do Courage Under Fire.) Perlman doeswell in his rather limited role. Lambert is OK some of the time, butrather wooden the rest. Brook is great too look at and sort of OK butthe script gives her no opportunity to stretch herself. I liked theactress who plays the Scotts partner – an interesting performance. Shelooks great too. I hope to see her more often (I resisted thetemptation to say "see more of her" – it could be misconstrued). Inmany ways a bad movie but it has some unexpected good points that keptme watching despite the lows. One commenter on this forum says watchingthis movie is a waste of time. Perhaps, but then really watching anymovie is strictly speaking a waste of time. This is especially sotoday, when hardly any modern movies have anything but laughable plots.There are many worse ways to waste your time than this movie.

7) In the future, all money has been obliterated in exchange for a chronicmedicine which treats (but doesn't cure) a universal plague thateveryone suffers from. However when an actual cure for the plague isproduced, the government wants to kill the scientist due to the shockit would have on the economy, Christopher Lambert, Lou Diamond Phillipsand Ron Perlman are aboard to make this more watchable than it wouldbe. Absolon is a straight to video movie (Obviously) which I watched onthe Sci-Fi channel, for some reason I have an uncanny ability to seekout the STV movies independent from them and some how avoid their madefor Sci-Fi movies, consider it luck I guess. However this being saidAbsolon is a competently made B.movie but it is also clichéd,unexciting and dreary. Lambert is actually not too shabby and there aremoments when you suspect that the movie is going to open up and getreally interesting but alas it never does. It always comes close to aboil but it loses steam due to an uninspired gunfight or somethinggratuitous to it's plot. Had Absolon concentrated on it's futuristicdwellings this would have been good, however because it lacksatmosphere the movie feels ordinary and by the numbers. Still fairlywatchable in a low expectations kind of way.

* * out of 4-(Fair)

I was very disappointed with this movie. I had read about it when it wasinproduction in the mag Indie Wire and I was excited to see ChristopherLambert making a sort of comeback. But there will be no coming back fromthis one. The script is ridiculous, the dialogue is trite, the acting isamateur, and the directing is boring. This movie takes itself a littletooseriously – the melodramatic music doesn’t help. It was a bigbummer.

9) *Potential spoilers* Both movies had environmental themes. And, each hadtwice the budget of this one. But, while Lambert is no Schwarzenegger, hecertainly did a much more riveting job with his character, in this movie,than he did as Connor Macleod in HL2. Not that HL2 being a box office flopwas his fault! I guess it’s just because he plays an ordinary mortal inthis one. An "Everyman" sort of cop, who suddenly realizes he has one lastchance to bring a little more beauty into an ugly (near-future) world. Kelly Brook is equally excellent as the scientist who may, or may not, beworking with the profiteering enemy. And, Ron Perlman does such arealistic job in portraying the fiendish profiteer in question, I have nodoubt that he’ll be equally convincing as the latest comic-book-hero-turned-movie-star.. ."Hellboy!" My final analysis? 3.4 stars

10) At the start and the end of the movie, an old man is telling the storymany years in the future.

In 2007, the Neurological Degeneration Syndrome virus is firstisolated. Eventually, because all the rain forests are cut down, thevirus, transmitted through the air, kills 5 billion people. Only aftera treatment called Absolon is found is the disease stopped, but Absolonis not a cure. And everyone needs it to live, and everyone gets it froma company called UPC. In this new world of the future, the onlycurrency is time. Every time someone pays for a product, the price isreferred to in minutes, hours, days, etc.

A scientist who has found the cure for NDS is murdered, and Det. NormanScott and his partner Ruth (who seems to take hair care advice fromKelly Osbourne) are assigned to the case. Since UPC seems to have amonopoly on the product the whole world needs in order to stay alive,it would be in their best interest if the cure were not found. And theWJD seem to be like the FBI, but they are evil.

Det. Scott spends most of his time with Claire, a scientist who is alsoworking on a cure. Occasionally, they are funny. UPC head Murchison andhis goons (who include Walters) want them to fail and are willing tokill. And there is a new twist: Scott is given three days to live as aresult of an experiment he didn't know he was participating in. Thismakes the search for the truth more urgent.

This started out as a really bad movie, and while it later showedpromise, it never really improved, with two exceptions. Ron Perlman dida very good job as the head villain, and there was one other actor whoreally showed talent. He played a doctor (or at least some sort ofmedical professional) who took care of apparently homeless people andwas raising two orphaned boys as his own.

Most of the other acting was mediocre or bad. Kelly Brook at leastlooked good, and she had her moments. Lou Diamond Phillips, despitebeing a respected actor, didn't show his ability here, in my opinion.

The movie showed little evidence of being set in the distant future.There were computer voices telling people to wake up in the morning,how much "money" they owed when they paid for products, and how much"money" they had left. One virtual reality scene had excellent visualeffects (as the return to the "real world" was made, that is), but thatseemed to use up the entire visual effects budget for the movie. Wewere supposed to pretend the cars weren't from the current decade,though cars have looked pretty much the same for years and I suppose itwould cost too much to change them to look futuristic. One truck whichdidn't run looked like it would be nearly 100 years old.

It wasn't the worst movie ever.

• At the height of the film’s popularity, Time Magazine printed the Disney Special Effects Department’s recipe for Flubber, as used in the movie. It read as follows: “To one pound of salt water taffy add one heaping tablespoon polyurethane foam, one cake crumbled yeast. Mix till smooth, allow to rise. Then pour into saucepan over one cup cracked rice with one cup water. Add topping of molasses. Boil till lid lifts and says ‘Qurlp’.” It is not recorded whether this also carried the standard warning “do not try this at home”.
• Three generations of the Wynn family act in this film: Ed Wynn; his son Keenan Wynn; and Keenan Wynn’s son, Ned Wynn.
• The song “Medfield Fight Song” was written by Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman, the first of many they would write for Disney.

• Continuity: When the Hawks are chasing Professor Brainard and Betsy, the two policemen are shown approaching the area in their squad car, a 1956 Ford. However, when they arrive on the scene, they are driving a 1960 Ford.
• Continuity: When Alonzo Hawk is talking to Ned and Betsy about ‘merging together’, Betsy is putting on his flubberized shoes. Right before Alonzo gets up you clearly see that the soles of the shoes do not have Flubber applied, although he jumps as if he did. He never changes shoes.

So, if you are looking for a film that will not offend, and offer a fewchuckles and will captivate your child’s attention, check out TheAbsent Minded Professor.

Also, IMHO, do not wast time with the Flubber remake.

Cheers

C

2) This is probably one of the best live action films Disney has everreleased.Fred MacMurray once again proved how great a comedic actor he was andthisfilm is just a confirmation of it. Also, Nancy Olson was great as hisfrustrated fiancee, Betsy. However, the real scene stealer in this filmisKeenan Wynne as old man Hawk. Mr. Hawk was probably one of the biggestweasels in cinematic history and Tommy Kirk is also great as his son Biff.

Also, the best scene in the whole film is the basketball game. That scenealone is what makes this film a classic comedy.

3) The Absent Minded Professor

Classic family from from Walt Disney that stars Fred MacMurray in the titlerole as a rather forgetful and absent minded professor who invents a strangeputty substance that drives him and his close contacts bonkers. The movie ismuch more inspired, likable and family-friendly (not to mention funnier andmore charming) than the remake starring Robin Williams, which was written byJohn Hughes long after his career had fallen downwards. This version is thedefinitive version–don’t let the kiddies convince you to rent the other onebefore you see this one!

**** / *****

4) The Absentminded Professor was the second film that Fred MacMurray inhis second career rebirth with Walt Disney as the midwife. He scored anenormous success in The Shaggy Dog and Disney films together with hisMy Three Sons TV series established MacMurray as the quintessentialfamily father figure which would endure for the rest of his life.

I do remember seeing this in the theater back as a youngster and backthen the younger ones in the crowd were looking at Tommy Kirk who wasat the height of his Disney popularity.

Nevertheless MacMurray gives a delightful performance as scienceprofessor Ned Brainerd who's accidentally invented a variation onrubber which has a great deal more bounce to it.

He's so wrapped up in his experiment that he's even forgetting hiswedding day to Nancy Olson, AGAIN. She's about had it with him andready to fall for the wolfish English professor Elliott Reid.

MacMurray has his own troubles. Other than helping his college win abasketball game with a team that they are way overmatched against, he'snot quite decided what use this stuff he calls flubber is good for. Butwealthy Keenan Wynn sure wants to get his hands on it.

Funniest sequence in the film is Keenan Wynn after MacMurray and Olsontrick him into wearing flubberized shoes is seeing bounce slowly intothe stratosphere before a quick thinking Tommy Kirk devises a way tocounteract his flubberized dad.

The AbsentMinded Professor was so popular with audiences that Disneydid another version with almost the entire same cast in Son of Flubber.

That one was almost as funny, but this still has a lot of laughs evenafter almost fifty years.

5) Some parts of this are very funny, some parts are silly stupid and allparts are very dated and make little sense. Maybe that's why someonefigured a re-make was appropriate. That, and the fact that it's still avery entertaining movie, almost a classic. The re-make was done in 1997with the movie, "Flubber."

Fred MacMurray, Nancy Olson, Keenan Wynn, Tommy Kirk…..wow, there aresome familiar names from the '50s and '60s Olson had lost her youthfullooks from "Sunset Boulevard," but that had been a decade earlier.MacMurray didn't look a whole lot different from his 1944 film noirclassic of "Double Indemnity," proving once again how much better menage than women.

Kids of today would still laugh at this film, although they have deadspots in here which are not prevalent in modern-day films.

6) Disney made this movie in 1961. "The Absent Minded Professor" is about,well, see the title!!!!! He makes this flying rubber stuff known as"Flubber," and it can do many things from bounce off walls to makingautomobiles fly in the sky!!!!!

This was seen in two versions: the colorized version, which I recallplayed on the Old Disney Channel so many times, and the B&W version,the version that I had seen first. My family rented this originalversion on VHS back in January 1998.

And now, check out what I found in the trivia section: a recipe forFlubber:

"To one pound of salt water taffy add one heaping tablespoonpolyurethane foam, one cake crumbled yeast. Mix till smooth, allow torise. Then pour into saucepan over one cup cracked rice with one cupwater. Add topping of molasses. Boil till lid lifts and says 'Qurlp'."

As Bill Nye says, "Well Now You Know!!!!!"

10/10

7) My wife and I saw this with our four young sons when it was firstreleased,and we thought it was great. We have seen it several times since, and itisalways entertaining. Unlike some critics, I thought Fred MacMurray wasperfect in the title role, and the supporting cast was great. The humormayseem a bit unsophisticated and hokey by present day standards, but in myeyes it makes the movie even more enjoyable. Show this film to yourunprejudiced younger children and grandchildren and watch them delight init.

The Absent-Minded Professor was a typical Disney classic that I watchedwhen I was younger. In short, this film is about a professor whocreates an anti-gravity substance known as ‘flubber’. This substancemakes his car fly, sort of reminiscent of the car in ‘Chitty ChittyBang Bang’. Of course, someone is trying to kidnap this idea, and it’sup to some children to save the day.

I am not sure what children today would think of this film, but I didfind it enjoyable, and I would have seen it in the mid-1980s. I wouldlike to think that children today would find it just as enjoyable andentertaining.

9) I must have been eight when Isaw this, since it’s listed ascoming out in 1961. I was an unsophisticated kid, who didn’t seetoo many movies in my youth, andthose I did see tended towards thenon-controversial. I’m glad they did,there was plenty of time for me tolearn about "sex, drugs, and rock androll later in my movie-going career.MacMurray, Kirk, and Wynn (and the others)played their roles to perfection, leaving mein open-mouthed admiration. An added bonus,my Dad was a professor and for quite awhile, my brother and I called him theAbsent Minded Professor…

10) When I was younger, Fred MacMurray was my Colin Farrell. He waseverywhere,and never seemed to make a bad movie. Sure, they might be campy and silly,but that’s what works for a younger age group. And this one holds up. Theflubber is quite possibly one of the neatest inventions in movie history.And though the Robin Williams remake gave it the new age CGI, the blackandwhite gives the movie such a good feel. I still get a kick out of Fredtorturing the man trying to muscle in on his girl.

Pundits will say it’s little more than an extended early-"Saturday NightLive" sketch–"SNL" vet Buck Henry even has a major role–but forsheerly silly laughs, it can’t be beat. Martin plays the most moronicwaiter ever hired for a restaurant. Henry plays a war-veteran of AMW’sshenanigans who brings his wife (Garr) to the restaurant for a crashcourse. It’s no-hold-barred craziness, and since it lasts only sevenminutes, it’s just long enough to be hilarious and notunbearable.

Martin and fellow writer Carl Gottlieb obviously hit pay dirt a coupleof years later with The Jerk, but this is an extremely funny warm-up forthat feature. (In fact, Martin used it as a prologue for his livestand-up act for years.) It’s been released on video, so search hard forit–it’s worth the while.

2) This is the kind of genius timing that Steve Martin is known for. Thescene, however small, is a great example of the perfection of Martin’searlystuff. Elements: Timing, extenuating circumstances, through line,immediacy, wonderful tactics, very clear obstacles and a perfect sense ofdoing it for the first time.

3) This was previewed for audiences on PBS’ recent Mark Twain award toSteve Martin. (Which was a very entertaining presentation in itself.)It stars Martin (he also wrote the script) as a forgetful waiterserving Bernie (Buck Henry) and his wife/girlfriend. Steven the Waitercan’t remember anything and continually asks the same questions -"Would you like anything to drink?" "Anything to drink?" "Anything todrink?" Then he brings six martinis and a lard omelet – which theydidn’t even order to begin with.

He brings out the desserts before the main courses, and so on and soforth.

This was presented at the awards show as the Oscar winner of 1977 forBest Short Feature. I’m not sure if it’s Oscar-worthy but Martin ISvery funny in it and his physical and intellectual humor is alreadybeginning to take form in film at an early age. His stand-up shows werealready hilarious and this was just another transition for him to thebig screen.

If you’re a fan of Martin, I highly recommend this. Also worth notingis that it was directed by Carl Gottlieb, who had a role in the movie"JAWS" and – if I’m not mistaken – helped write various forms of thescreenplay.

4) When we "go to the show" in these 21st Century times, we typically goto a multi-screen,super theatre, which is usually part of a big,national chain. We usually see but one movie, preceded by lotsatrailers. Before these 'previews of coming attractions', we, the moviegoing public, can count on viewing seemingly countless commercials.Everything from the latest cola sensations to local real estate lady ishawked.

In years past, there were many different types of movie shown at thecinema, which were one screen operations and typically located in theneighborhood business district. In addition to the Feature,one wouldsee several different kinds of film, which depended on day andtime.Travelogs,Newsreels, Cartoons and Serial Chapters were examples ofprogram content. Also a format that thrived from the earliest days offilm right up to the 1950's was the Comedy Short.

THE ABSENT MINDED WAITER is a fine example of a sort of throw back tothose zany, illogical but always laugh making little films. Just likeso many of those comedy series, ABSENT MINDED showcases the talents andcomic routines of a comedian which was conceived as a live set piece,then honed, fine tuned and perfected in front of a live audience. Nomatter if the venue was Vaudiville or a modern Comedy Club. It could bethe English Music Hall or today's Las Vegas.

Steve Martin tried something different with his ABSENT MINDED WAITER.He succeeded, but in a field (Short Subjects, usually 1 to 3 reelslong)which is greatly diminished from its former status. Whereas now ashort like this is a real,reel novelty; at one time, some performerslived there almost exclusively.

We're sure that had Mr.Martin been around in "the Old Days", he wouldhave been right up there with Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, W.C.Fields, The Marxes, Laurel & Hardy, The Stooges,Joe McDoakes,etc.,etc.,etc………..

last week my girlfriend found it for me. alas it was on an NTSC Videoall the way from the USA. I am now selling it as I have been able tocopy it to DVD, which is great because i now have a copy of the filmthat I Love. A true love story.

2) James Edwards, play-write and star of this movie, died this week(January 2007). He was 89. Turns out he was only ever pleased that hisstory, however modest, was made into a movie (and that he sat in a fullCinema, albeit somewhat overwhelmed, to see it for himself). This storywas faithfully true to real-life events despite the fact that it mighthave seemed sentimental. I'd recommend watching this movie. It reflectsa moment in time in NZ when conscription separated families, as it doesalways. Jim's story is as relevant today as it was in NZ's war-timehistory. Craig McLaughlin's performance is faithful to the character heportrays. He is calm despite the frustrations of his predicament – Iwonder if he knew of the genuine commitment Jim felt for Daisy despitetheir youth?

3) A previous comment on AWOL stated that the film was stereotypical,empty and pretty much lame with a typical story.

This is such a false accusation. The film is based on the ACTUAL EVENTSof James Edwards and Daisy who went AWOL. This isn't just a work offiction created to wow audience. My Great Uncle wrote this story asdedication to his wife Daisy about what he had to go through to be byher side.

The movie while not spectacular is enjoyable, authentic and has aninnonce about it that captures real life desperation.

Watch it. Learn about it. Don't just write about it in your ownarrogance.

4) The problem with this movie wasn’t in the story. This was, I felt, a verytouching story about a man who chooses to stay with his wife even after amiscarriage (when the whole reason for the marriage was the pregnancy). Asappy testament to the power of love, the director (John Laing) had aperfect story for the Lifetime channel, especially since it was based on atrue story. The acting was good enough, and being shot in New Zealand, thescenery was beautiful. The film failed, I believe, on the fact that thewayin which the story was told would have made a great TV show, perhaps doneover two weeks, or, if all at once, with some commercials to break it up.Itwas, unfortunately, a feature length film, and I think there needs to be adifference, and in this there was none. Rating: 18/40

5) The total lack of originality in the title was an omen of what the filmwaslike. The movie was uninspired, unoriginal and full of every World War IIcliche. My thoughts as I watched the film was that this looked like amade-for-TV historical drama, but maybe I am being unfair on TVmovies.

The story was set in NZ in 1942 and was effective in its portrayal ofKiwisand NZ society at that time. But it was the cliches that was too much forme. I will give just two examples of this.

The soldier goes absent without leave so that he could escort his wifefromWellington to Auckland. Why she couldn’t get on a train and go on her ownwas unclear. At the train station he drops his suitcase and it burstsopen,revealing his military uniform. This of course happens all the time, youarealways seeing people in train stations and airports all over the worlddropping their suitcases and having them burst open. After the soldiergathers everything together, a voice calls out ‘Hey you, stop’ andsomehow Ijust knew that the soldier had dropped something and it was beingreturned,which was the case.

Later the couple were working on a farm, helping with the harvest. As onedoes when one is urgently trying to get to Auckland so that the soldiercanreturn to the army. Then a warplane flew overhead. There appears to be alawof nature that when a warplane is flying over friendly territory andthereis a camera below, the engine will fail and the plane will crash. And ofcourse that is what happened here.

The film truly was ‘absent without leave’, but what was absent was anoriginality.

2) This is a fairly dull, yet still moderately engaging police procedural.Stephen Baldwin plays the detective who tries to stop a serial killer byfinding the clue to his motives in his sordid childhood. The detective hasalso lost his son recently, a side-plot which adds nothing to the main plotwhatsoever, except perhaps that it gives Baldwin the opportunity to bebrooding and soulful throughout the film, making the already grim atmosphere(although there is almost no on-screen violence) even more gloomy. Thebiggest shock of the film comes at the very end, in the credits, when it isrevealed that the female psychologist-police consultant is played by TyneDaly! I wouldn’t have recognized her in a million years! (**)

3) Firstly stephen baldwin isn’t that big of an actor, but his total filmslistare incredible. That says something, im gona tell you this guy is great.hisability to make you feel at ease but tense and alwasy aware isunbelievable.

This film was great i was flickering through the channels after watchingeast enders and thought whats this , my girlfriend being a big fan herselfsaid leave it on, so i do. and boy im so glad i did. Not saying to muchabout the story guys its great , a real treat.

4) I don’t particularly like Stephen Baldwin, as an actor, but his blank facewasn’t a total loss as a grieving father in this twisty mystery. Thecharacter called for a "numb" person, who became involved in a dynamicsituation, which frustrated and enraged, as people died in strange ways,andthe police raced to figure out who was going to be next. The acting wasn’tthat great, but the story held my interest. Worth a look.

5) What can I say about DTV movies that hasn't already been said? Theanswer is not a whole lot. You go in expecting a cheap forgettableb-movie and the majority of the time that's exactly what you get.Thankfully 'Absence Of The Good' is actually decent. Here we find CalebBarnes (Baldwin) as a Salt Lake City homicide detective trying tosettle back into his job after losing his son five weeks ago. His wifeis still somewhat shattered by it, but being the man he is Caleb putson a strong face and tries to move on. Naturally soon he and hispartner become entangled in a series of murders who's linked natureonly becomes apparent as they pick up the pieces, but it's time theycan't afford as the killer continues to strike out at the innocent.

Now I know what you're thinking. At first glance 'Absence' seems likeany other serial killer movie to come along. What sets it apart is it'stightly filmed, acted and shot. Never once does it become bogged downin overcomplicated plot / character points or try to be something it'snot. What makes 'Absence of the Good' work is it has something to say -it gets in – says it effectively – then leaves.

Stephen Baldwin turns in his usual self and while that has been adetractor in other movies for once his mannerisms don't sink the movie,but actually fit in nicely. The supporting cast is more than adequateat filling out their roles with Tyne Daly as a psychologist and RobertKnepper particularly strong as Caleb's partner. Under the direction ofJohn Flynn (who also directed 1987's Best Seller – one of my favoritesleeper films) the story is somewhat slow going, but it builds to anice crescendo that hits the right note. All in all for a low budgetDTV television movie starring Stephen Baldwin of all people – theresults are quite decent. Worthy of a look.

6) The movie illustrates in an accurate and effective manner the existence ofevil and sinisterness. Furthermore, it presents an overview of how muchdamage we each can do with our actions, words, thoughts, feelings, andbeliefs; that damage radiating out to everyone else either consciously orsubconsciously, and having more intense effects upon those who are weaker ormore vulnerable, i.e., little children.

7) i was laying on my couch stoned at 2 in the morning and this movie cameon. needless to say it is the most astounding, incredible terriblemovie i have ever seen. the plot is off the charts, camera workmesmerizing, and the work of Stephen Baldwin….words don’t describeit. the movie centers around a cop who is trying to solve a series ofkilling in salt lake city. the killer always cleans up afterhim/herself and always places the victims in some sort of familysetting. if you are into clichés, this movie provides one at ever turn,or every time Baldwin appears on screen. although i missed the first 15minutes and didn’t seen the ending, i will for sure watch the rest whenit is on. if you are in need of a laugh, or if you’re an aspiring filmmaker who needs reassurance, this one is for you.

although i gave this a 1, it is in a very good way.

• Writer Kurt Luedtke, a veteran newspaperman, based the protagonist of this film on the real-life son of a reputed gangster in Detroit. The alleged gangster was tried and convicted of the crime. At his retrial potential jurors were asked if they had seen this movie, to determine if they would be prejudiced in their evaluation of the evidence. Ultimately the gangster and his partner were both convicted and sentenced to jail terms for labor-related extortion.
• Paul Newman and director Sydney Pollack were both gourmet chefs and had a running culinary competition throughout filming with Sally Field as the judge. Though a good sport at first, Sally grew tired of eating gourmet night after night, and began begging off her judging duties in favor of hamburgers and omelettes at local diners.
• Luther Adler’s last film.

• Factual errors: Megan sends Gallagher a copy of the front page of the next morning’s daily newspaper at least 12 hours before the edition even went to print. In reality, the front page is never laid out until the last minute before deadline to insure the most current news.
• Factual errors: The union workers who struck Michael told him that if their union cards were pulled they would not be able to work anywhere. Florida is a right to work state and you don’t need to have a union card to work. They would be considered “scabs” but they would be able to work at any dock in Miami.

2) For a while back in the seventies the hottest political property in NewYork State was one Maurice Nadjari. He was appointed a specialprosecutor and ran up a big string of convictions of various figures onthe New York scene.

Then his convictions began being tossed out one by one until a oncefeared figure became a laughingstock. Turned out he used tactics verysimilar to those countenanced by Bob Balaban in this film.

Nadjari turned out in the end to be worse than any of the people he wasprosecuting. That’s the message here, don’t idealize some of theseprosecutors on a white horse.

Bob Balaban is part of the Justice Department Strike Force looking intothe murder of a labor leader in Florida. It’s been months and hisinvestigation is yielding bupkis. So he tries some extralegal tactics.

Paul Newman is the son of a reputed mobster, but who’s been out of therackets for years. But Balaban leaks to gullible reporter Sally Fieldthat Newman is the target of his investigation. The idea is for Newmanto go undercover and work to get information on his uncle, LutherAdler, who Balaban suspects.

Newman’s reputation is smashed and Balaban’s actions lead to the deathof Melinda Dillon who is a friend of Newman’s.

Paul Newman was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Henry Fonda thatyear for On Golden Pond. Sally Field was at the height of her career.This film came right around the time she got her two Oscars for NormaRae and Places in the Heart.

The leads and cast are just fine. This turned out to be the farewellpicture of Luther Adler, one of the great character actors in thehistory of film.

However the two people this film really belongs to are Bob Balaban andWilford Brimley. Balaban got his career role in this as Elliott Rosenof the Organized Crime Strike Force. He is truly one loathsome littlecreep. All it’s about with him is getting another notch on his belt,another scalp for the lodgepole.

And then there’s Wilford Brimley. He’s the big honcho from Washington,DC sent down to do damage control when it all blows up in their faces.He gathers all the principals together at the very end of the film,like Nick Charles would, and dispenses the justice accordingly. He’s onthe screen for about twenty unforgettable minutes.

The office of prosecutor in our system is one of responsibility andshould never be entrusted to any lightweights or any overly ambitiousfolks.

3) Start with Paul Newman and Sally Field and you don’t need much more, butthis film delivers a lot more. The plot takes some unexpected turns butdevelops logically and clearly with just enough suspence to keep viewersentranced. When concluded you realize how all elements of the plot arekept within reasonable bounds and how refreshing that is. Here’s a filmthat relies on character development and an intriguing plot with animportant message. No special effects, gore and bedroom scenes needed tomake this a great movie.

4) There’s really no other word for it. I find the whole of this moviecompelling, from Sally Fields’ naivete to Paul Newman’s innocent who turnsthe tables on his prosecutors, to the various supporting characters who allhave their little niche. The best of all is Wilford Brimley, who gets tochew scenery and totally steal the scene he’s in. It’s an intelligentdrama, addressing a subject as relevant today as it was in ‘81, with justenough humor to leaven the whole thing.

5) This one hit too close for comfort for critics and the news organizationsfor whom they work. Paul Newman gives one of his top 15 lifetimeperformances (and for him, that’s excellent) as Tommy Gallagher, the ownerof a shipping company in Florida. When the joint murder investigation bythe federal and state authorities goes nowhere, D. A. Elliot Rosen (BobBalaban) sets up reporter Sally Field with evidence seemingly linkingGallagher to the murder.

What follows is fast-paced, wry, and very well actor. Don’t miss the chanceto see the great Luther Adler in his last performance as Newman’s mob-linkeduncle.

6) This movie looks to have all the elements of a classic but somehowfalls short. Unscrupulous prosecutor dupes reporter Field into creating(false) impression that businessman Newman was involved in a murder, inthe hope that will somehow help his investigation. The lie hasunexpected and tragic consequences, after which Newman turns thetables. Field is fine as liberated yet vulnerable thirty-something,Newman is also good if a little obscure in a difficult role; butBrimley as Asst US Attorney steals the show when he finally blows thewhistle on everyone. Brimley’s short time in this movie really isclassic. The overall problem here is a little too much soapbox and notenough real emotion from nearly everyone.

7) I did not feel too much the reservations some of your commentators hadabout the acting of Newman and Fields. I thought they were fine. But ofcourse the importance of this film lies (as so many others pointed out)in its expose of the inner workings of our justice and journalisticsystems and their ability to wreak havoc in the lives of ordinarydefenseless citizens. I rather thought this movie a precursor oftelevision's Law and Order for that reason. For me among the movie'smany touching and beautiful moments the most poignant was the scene inwhich the soon-to-be-suicidal young friend of Newman's receives at dawnon her lawn the freshly delivered newspaper she'd been waiting allnight for and reads with horror the "outing" of her abortion for all toread and proceeds to gather up all the copies of the newspaper thrownonto the neighbors' lawns so as to stave off her moment of shame anddisgrace with all the co-religionist people who know her including herfamily. It reminded me of the scene in Rattigan's Separate Tables inwhich the middle-aged molester of young girls finds his exploitsreported in a neighboring village's newspaper which has been deliveredto his hotel. He then tries to cut out the revealing story before itcan be delivered to its subscriber. But he too fails to suppress thenews and has to suffer the consequences of publicity in his privatelife. Absence of Malice is a great and important movie

This movie provides a clever insight into the principles the press liveby. Reporters sometimes lose their basic humanity because they’re notlooking at the human interest, but at covering all the angles. What’snewsworthy is what’s in the public domain as fact, not gossip. It’sdefinitely something to think about in this age when large sections ofthe media are intent on muckraking over the affairs of those who aredeemed to be ‘high-profile’…

The movie asks us, though, to keep in mind that sometimes there’s moregoing on than meets the eye, and that certain acts function as a meansto an end. It can be seen as an extension of that great 70’s movietradition where acclaimed directors make polished films exposinghigh-level corruption. "Absence of Malice" is an involving exercise inparanoid mystery, with Newman in fine form as always, and Sally Fieldproviding capable support.

9) Paul Newman and Sally Field, though somewhat opposites both in theirroles as Michael Colin Gallagher and Megan Carter respectively and inreal Hollywood life, mesh and make believable lovers. Megan tellsMichael that she is 30 something and doesn't need courting to play inthe hay. Michael retorts, "Maybe I do," and drives away. Megan winds upsomewhat of a failure both as a newspaper hound and as a liberatedfemale. Then along comes Wilford Brimley in a bit part and runs awaywith the show. That's saying a lot since the well chosen cast gives itall they've got including ace jobs by Bob Balaban and Melinda Dillon.

The essence of the film is "What is the nature of truth?" What we readin the paper ain't necessarily so. Jibes are poked at bureaucrats toowho certainly have problems determining what is truth. As long as thepaperwork looks good then so goes the world. With the Horatio Algersuccess formula still around in the world of big government and bigbusiness, empire builders are a dime a dozen. Usually their asses aresaved by cover ups and fall guys. In "Absence of Malice" the innocentvictim outsmarts the bureaucrats and the Fourth Estate to bring thehouse of cards down, certainly an anomaly in the 21th century as it wasin 1981, maybe even more so.

Admittedly, the film becomes too preachy at times which not only grateson the nerves but also slows the picture down. Yet the well-writtenscript and Sydney Pollack's knowing direction keep it from becoming atotal disaster. Not on the level of Pollack's previous "Three Days ofthe Condor" or his next feature "Tootsie," "Absence of Malice" stillpacks a wallop.

10) Nearly a quarter-century after its release, Absence of Malice stillpacks an emotional wallop. One of the very few Hollywood films to levelany kind of criticism at the American Press, specifically big-citynewspapers, the story in many ways seems even more timely today (in2005) than when it was made.

Paul Newman gives one of his best performances in this film, andcharacter actor Wilford Brimley became a household name thanks to hisdramatic turn in the movie’s climatic scene near the end. Sally Fieldsis simply herself, which makes her the weakest element of the entirefilm and the only reason not to give this classic effort a perfect 10.

The sex is minimal, the physical violence practically non-existent(except for a short, tense scene between Newman and Fields) and thedialogue tight and gripping. Still worth your time, 25 years later.