Reviews

This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.

What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine.

I was looking forward to this new version and I am disappointed. Some very charming creatures are in it but they don't seem to be getting loving attention. The little bird with the unusual eyes is adorable. (Would make a great toy if only Aardman would license really nice fake ceramic (plastic) versions of the creatures..)The birds in the cage are very American. The male bird voice is very familiar! Unfortunately, the voices are often not funny enough, and some of the creatures seem to be lacking when it comes to coloration. (e.g. the bull dogs..even the horses..)One of the problems is that the American voices that have been chosen are not as funny as the British ones.. The fake Chong..is not as funny as Cheech and Chong..but could be with a little work. The Alfred Hitchcock cat voice in the British version is wonderful..as is the cat. Why aren't the American pair (two cats) as interesting and as funny as the Hitchcock cat and funny little dog pair? The dachshunds are wonderful..and need more attention.

There are also too many commercials on American TV for this kind of program.

It is obvious that those who dislike this film are quick to say it is an inaccurate portrayal of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. This is somewhat like the way that many Moslems are quick to defend Islam at its worst. Apparently too many Jews (and non-Jews worried about being called anti-semitic?) feel that criticism of this most fundamentalist form of Judalism is a terrible thing. It's a good thing and the more criticism there is the better it is. There are other forms of Judaism. There are also many Jews who are not fans of religion (as in my case). There are too many films by Jews and non-Jews that tend to equate being Jewish with being Orthodox and Ultra-orthodox. This includes the obnoxious use of Hassids at the beginning of the credits for "Schindler's List". Then there is the silliness of "A Stranger Among Us". "A Price Above Rubies" was an improvement. "Kadosh" represents the next step. Well done technically. Beautifully acted. It's harrowing but certainly not boring. (This review is by June of joejune.)

I really don't like giving this film a numerical rating. It strikes me as an experiment that has and will cause some viewers to think things that Figgis might not be happy to hear about. His film "Liebestraum" is one of my favorites, but he might find my interpretations of that one quite odd. So what I have here are a list of ideas which I think are suggested by parts of the film. As one reviewer here said, this is not a film about sex. The sex and the title are there to drag people in and to keep some of them watching. Parts of the film are certainly straightforward enough as in the case of little Figgis being treated horribly in a modern 'civilized' school gymnasium setting. The description of primitive people and how they trained (or still train..) their children to be killers and cannibals when it comes to members of other tribes that comes before the school sequence certainly tells you what's going on. Civilization hasn't come very far. However, apologists for both the cannibal tribe and the 'war on obesity'might have to think the 'apologies' over. (unless they are hopeless) When it comes to animals..the human one is one of the really low ones, especially when it's part of a group or a tribe. Of course the scenes with the characters most reviewers call Adam and Eve do in the end suggest South Africa during the apartheid period. The police and guns and dogs. The twins..are an easy part. However, not all twins are happy to be twins. (And certain cultures view twins in very vicious tribal ways..) The sequence in the desert could give a viewer something to think about when someone comes around asking for donations for starving desert tribes who wear turbans and paint themselves blue. The tribe kills the woman, one of the twins,because she offered to stay behind while the others involved in the 'accident' drove to notify the police. A child who should not have been running alone in the desert was killed by the reckless driving of a western man incapable of much thought. He's no better than the jerks who laugh at the incident involving the blind woman's seeing eye dog earlier in the film. There too the twin tries to help and is hit at by the blind woman trying to fend off the dogs in heat and maybe their counterparts. The twin is innocent but the members of the tribe think in numbers. They are incapable of any of the nuances human beings should after all this time be capable of. The reckless driver gets off free and is happy to leave the woman behind. Her boyfriend is a little upset. Of course we don't know who played the tribe in the desert... It's a nicely cynical piece of work. Sex is the least interesting thing in the movie. (This is from june of 'joejune'.)

This is an awful film but it does have the outlines of a plot that Hitchcock or someone with talent would have made into an excellent film. No one here seems to have noticed the odd choice made by someone connected with this film to use parts of the magnificent Mozart Mass in C Minor as background to torture scenes in a mental hospital. (It's strange that no one here seems to have noticed the beautiful music.) As it is the film seems almost comic.Kim Cattrall's character is completely ridiculous (although not impossible in a mental hospital setting...)The cast was capable of good work..I wonder how much they knew about the film when they signed their contracts. I wonder why anyone was willing to produce it. It's sad..It could have been a good film.

I'm surprised by the negative reviews here. It's the kind of film worth seeing many times. The fragmentation tactics and the music work really well. Nothing is ever perfectly clear and that's a plus as well. The mystery stays with you. You can't be sure you understand the motives of the people involved in the assassination plot. Like 'The Package' this film does use the JFK assassination as a reference point but it uses it in very small pieces so that you have to think about them as parts of a difficult puzzle. At the same time the mood of the film is strong enough so that you don't get the feel of just a set of puzzles. Looking forward to more good films by the talented people involved.