josephlord-1

This engaging 9/11 drama is beautifully filmed, acted, written and scored. The young man who plays the lead and frankly, holds the movie together with his almost constant time on screen. So with that can anyone answer why he was NOT nominated for a Best Actor Oscar? He not only held his own against the biggies like Bullock and Hanks but rose above them or was on equal footing throughout the movie. It's criminal he didn't get a nom. Nor did the beautifully "Adapted Screenplay" or Supporting Actress with Viola Davis, who can stir out tears with just a single look.........a most beautiful face on any screen anytime. If you're reluctant to revisit 9/11 don't let the backdrop of 9/11 in this film scare you away........it's simply good film making. If you see it, write to the Academy of Arts.....and let them hear about their oversights.

You can read the story synopsis elsewhere on these pages. My review is all about how thoroughly enjoyable it was to see two intelligent men on screen. It's something rare in American male testosterone driven films which are aimed at the teeny bopper male group. This film ran a gamut of references fro Coleridge to ABBA and never missed a beat.

I really just want to salute the movie as a triumph that says you don't need bombs, explosions or farts to make a film enjoyable. The conversations ran so smoothly. One would have thought them natural as in a cinema verite...........I knew nothing of the stars nor their UK experience and CV.............I just enjoyed listening to them without any prior historical context...........it also made me want to visit northern England to enjoy the food, scenes and outdoors. Worth a watch on a nice quiet peaceful American night. Maybe it will rub off on us.

I finally got around to seeing this film and frankly I was not shocked; probably because I had read about its grossness far in advance. What I wasn't prepared for was the fact that a large part of the grossness was not actually shown, but rather spoken of and indirectly seen through bandage attachments. At some points it was very Hithcockian in the fear was instilled indirectly. Graphs showed how the surgery would be accomplished; only bits of the surgery were actually shown; the graphic defecation scene was verbalized and intimated. Very Hitchcock were the master of suspense a tad more mad. However, the scariest part of the film was Dieter Laser's performance. I can't recall ever seeing a mad scientist on film that projected madness and insanity as deeply as Mr. Laser……..Every time he was on screen you could feel your skin crawl with fear. Brilliant performance, mainly because it went to the edge of "over the top" but never actually got over the top. I've also read reviews which damned the actresses for not being "good actresses". A bunch of hooey for sure from those observers. I'd like to see them top the girls "tongue in cheek" performances. I never for a moment didn't see fear in their eyes, which btw is also another means of showing more fear than the actually surgery which was done while the cast was under anesthetics. In the beginning of the film you could feel the chemistry of the girls as they giggled about in their hotel room. A definite chemistry; one which would be needed as they got closer to each other at the Dr.'s house. Hats off to this film for sever reasons; suspense, fear and scare without an overload of blood and gore as in other films. Think of the Akitamura's job of convincing us that he was frightened, angry and scared in his native Japanese tongue, while again having tongue in cheek fears to contend with of his own character. Bottom line: An original, at the edge, horror film. Where does on go after that…..kudos to the cast for braving out a fully developed and overly imaginative film………..and to Mr. Six for following through. Can you imagine the sales pitch he had to prepare? Besides, our news media shows more graphic crap than this on their 24/7 newscasts (eg. There was more gore with Kadhafi killing, etc.)