Again, I've read all of the comments posted here and agree with the many intelligent ones, but totally disagree with those who think it was/is hokum.

Personally, I think nuclear is about the only energy left to us, unless our governments (feds and states) increase the grants thinking homeowners will use photo-cells on their roofs. Many attractive and pricey homes in Southern Calfifornia are designed and built to take advantage of the cleanest energy around, the sun. I live in a loft, which is exposed to total sunlight on its roof the entire day. I hardly use the AC - I'm sure it would consume too much electricity to convert the intense heat in the attic to about five degrees cooler. We are blessed with "dry" heat in this part of the country. I'm from the Gulf Coast of the USA, so I know about humidity.......

That said, I found "the China Syndrome" to be a convincing movie about what COULD go wrong, if the industry is not busy regulating and inspecting nuclear plants. I think there are enough comments posted here to enlighten those who still fear it like the plague: they ARE safe. TMI is still on-line....

Director James Bridges carefully guides this plot (by Mike Gray-T S Cook) to build suspense and to a thoughtfully interesting film. All the roles were well-played: Jane Fonda ("Kimberly Wells"), Jack Lemmon (Jack Godell") and producer Michael Douglas ("Richard Adams") are all excellent in their roles, plus all of the rest of the cast. I, too, loved there being no score. It was so interesting to get a true-to-life glimpse of the behind-the-scenes of the TV industry - that shouldn't be surprising. Currently, Dan Rather is sue-ing CBS, and I hope he wins. Can you believe Donald Trump saying "he's a loser" ? Trump - who cares? "tiberius1234" posted a very good comment here - I agree. It is my opinion that getting "vaporized" by a nuclear spill is much better than living in a world which has been wasted, and becomes "Blade Runner" and/or "Solyent Green". Come away from your video-games for a couple of hours and watch this "dated" movie (really isn't), and get a little education on nuclear energy. I Recommend it to the whole family....


I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.

It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our "hero" though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself.

What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.

I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true!


I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back.

The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well.

All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it.

And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way.


As you may know Norway is the most developed country in the world (regarding to HDI; Human Development Index). This film craftily reveal our future to us. Our future would be that of Norway since we are all paddling to achieve the best and offer the least. The life that was shown was maybe an exaggeration, yet comparing today's concerns with those of our ancestors it is not far-from-reality reasoning.

Watching this film free from all of our pre-assumptions, we can find both of our faces; the one that is laughing at the brilliant scene of Andreas dumping her girlfriend and the one that is searching through magazines hours and hours to choose some stupid chair among stupid collections.

The idea of the hole with the hope of lightness was another magnificent idea of the film. The slight glory; yet the only one, and the effort that was put to reach it makes us feel closer to Andreas.

Although I was attracted mostly to the idea and production of the film, Trond Fausa Aurvaag played pretty well and the atmosphere of the film was quite matchable.


This Norwegian film starts with a man jumping over the subway, apparently committing suicide. But the next scene shows him arriving in a lonely bus into a desert. He meets a man, and is shipped off to a mysterious city, where he starts working in an aseptic modern office as an accountant. The coworkers seem nice, if guarded, he soon meets a girlfriend, yet the city seems utterly strange, as food has no taste, alcohol doesn't make you drunk, and there's nary a children around. Is this a dream, or is he in paradise, or in hell?. While at times, the films looks as extended episode of The Twilight Zone (even at ninety minutes, the movie seems a bit long), it is quite thought provoking. The best scenes are those in which the exaggeration is minimal, as when the people engage in banal conversations about interior decoration, and recoil at discussing deeper issues. I always thought there was something inhuman in advanced capitalist societies, in the way they try to repress the basic urges of human nature. And this movie is best when it devastatingly critiques this life style. Unfortunately, the movie ends up a big long, and the director doesn't seem to know how to end it, but most for of the running time this is very much worth seeing.


Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.

Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.

The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.

Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.


It's particularly hard for a director to capture film-making without getting precious, inbred, over-dramatic, or all three. Breillat ably demonstrates the instinctive, lizard-brain methods of a female auteur in extracting from two "cattle" (as Hitchcock called actors) a love-scene of searing intimacy. Her main battle is with her leading man ("an actor is really a woman" she opines), although, naturally, it is the leading lady who will steal the show. I disagree that this is Breillat's first comedy. 'Romance' was at various points hilarious, but I accept that the French sense of humour can be elusive for foreigners; indeed, dozens of IMDb reviewers detected no comedy in Romance. By contrast, Sex Is Comedy raises plenty of laughs, mainly by using an actor's prop that goes back thousands of years to Plautus and the ancient Greeks. We wondered, leaving the theatre, whether Roxane's "beard" was a wig. A lovely performance from Anne Parillaud as Breillat wrestling with her own script, looking ten years younger than her age.


Shohei Imamaura's Black Rain was released in 1989 just at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, a fact that gives the film about the slow deterioration of Hiroshima radiation victims an added poignancy. The black rain in the title refers to the combination of ash, radioactive fallout, and water that fell one or two hours after the explosion. There have been other books and films about the dropping of the atomic bomb but none as unique and powerful as this one. Based on a novel by Masuji Ibuse who gathered information from interviews and the diaries of real-life bomb victims, the film depicts how an entire family is affected psychologically as well as physically by the bomb years after the original explosion. It is a horrifying vision but one that resonates with deep compassion for humanity.

The film begins in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 as soldiers and civilians go about their normal daily activities. Suddenly a blinding light flashes and a thunderous blast is heard. Almost every single building is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. The first atomic bomb ever dropped on a city is now a part of history. Survivors must somehow restart their lives, unaware of the bomb's devastating after effects. Filmed in high-contrast black and white, the story centers around Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka), a young woman who is caught in the radioactive rain as her boat heads back to the city to search for friends and relatives. In Hiroshima, Imamura shows us indelible images that remain with us: a young boy with skin hanging from his body pleads with his brother to recognize him, an older man is in tears over his inability to free his son from piles of debris, a mother is in torment as she rocks the blackened body of her child.

When the family returns to their rural home, Yasuko's life is forever changed. She sees her friends dying around her and waits for the inevitable bouts of radiation sickness that have already affected her Uncle Shigematsu Shimuza (Kazuo Kitamura) and Aunt Shigeko Shimuza (Etsuko Ichihara). Pretending that there is only business as usual, the family denies that the bomb has affected Yasuko. "She forgot how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. Everyone forgot it. They forget the hell of fire and go to rallies like an annual festival. I'm sick of it," says a friend Katayama (Akiji Kobayashi). Yasuko internalizes the tragedy, feeling shame for being different than others and guilty for being contaminated.

When her aunt and uncle try to find her a husband, the eligible men refuse to marry her because of suspicions about her health, even though Shigematsu has copied her diary to prove that she wasn't directly exposed to the bomb. The only suitor she feels comfortable with is another damaged man, Yuichi (Keisuke Ishida), who has a panic attack every time he hears the roar of an engine. At the end, the beauty of life shows itself ever so fleetingly when Yasuko goes to the pond and sees a sight she has been longing for all her life, the king carp jumping in the water, playfully as if to say that beyond despair there is still joy. Sadly we hear on the radio statements by politicians about using the bomb once again in the Korean War. "Human beings learn nothing", says Shigematsu. "They strangle themselves. Unjust peace is better than a war of justice. Why can't they see?" Immamura's Black Rain has hopefully allowed all of us to see more clearly.


This is a pretty faithful adaptation of Masuji Ibuse's novel, "Black Rain." Like the book it is very moving and thought-provoking. The story revolves around a couple's attempts to see their niece successfully married. They are having trouble finding suitors because of a rumor that she suffers from radiation sickness, after walking through Hiroshima on the day of the bombing. Well filmed, well acted, moving, tragic, horrifying and funny.


It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.

The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.

The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.

I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing.


To answer the question of a previous reviewer who asked the name of the U.S. official mentioned in "Lumumba", the name of the character is "Mr. Carlucci." Frank Carlucci is reported as having been at that time Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in the Congo. Subsequently, among other assignments, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and is now the Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It's hardly surprising that Carlucci's biographical sketch on his www.carlylegroup.com web site fails to credit his service in the Belgian Congo. If his name was deliberately censored from the HBO version of "Lumumba" it may have been to avoid the possibility of HBO's being sued in U.S. courts. Carlucci's name, however, is clearly mentioned in the theatre version of "Lumumba" that I saw recently. In the event, I expect that he would deny any involvement in Lumumba's murder.

Others have commented on the evenhandedness with which the film "Lumumba" treats the parties concerned: Lumumba-supporters, other Congolese, even Belgians. A somewhat more sinister view emerges, I think, from the BBC documentary entitled "Who Killed Lumumba?", based on the book "The Murder of Lumumba" by Belgian historian Ludo de Witte. When examined closely, these films demonstrate that the fate of Lumumba and the history of the Congo is not just a matter of black and white. Only Lumumba's murderers believe that.


A highly original film using a myriad of genres and film techniques to stunning and powerful effect. All people involved gave only their very best and it shows on screen. A committed film with a committed cast and crew. Simply Brilliant. Just go and see it NOW!


hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot

take care everyone...


Screenwriters Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, and (of all people) Dorothy Parker enable director Alfred Hitchcock to expound on what may have been his favorite movie theme: innocent man, wrongly fingered for crime, takes it on the lam. Hitchcock, who some credit with originating the story, engineers a great deal of suspense in plot about a warehouse worker blamed for the explosion which killed his best friend; he sets out on journey to find the real culprit. Plenty of excitement on a grand-scale, with usually-colorless actors (Priscilla Lane, Norman Lloyd, Alan Baxter) doing surprisingly fine work. Even eternally-smug Robert Cummings gets into the proper spirit! *** from ****


I really loved seeing this movie. I think it's a brilliant, underrated Alfred Hitchcock movie. Everyone is familiar with the famous Statue of Liberty scene, but there's a really great movie before that. Robert Cummings is great in what I consider to be his greatest role, and the beautiful Priscilla Lane shows that she has a lot of talent too. But I think Norman Lloyd gives the best performance. His character, Fry, is so evil and devious. Even though he's not in it for very long, the movie wouldn't be the same without him.

"Saboteur" is a great movie that every Hitchcock fan should see. I give it a 10 out of 10!!


I am a massive Hitchcock fan, ever since seeing "Rear Window" on television. "Saboteur" is not Hitchcock's best for me though, it is very good but not a masterpiece. It does have its faults, some parts are rather slow moving and as a consequence of it being written off in a hurry the script felt rather incomplete. But Hitchcock's direction is superb, and the performances weren't that bad. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane both do a good enough job, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd come very close to stealing the show. The story is good, about a wronged man on the run, very similar themes used in "39 Steps" and "North By Northwest", and cleverly provides some much needed escapism. The music score was absolutely outstanding; the music in the opening title sequence was phenomenal, almost like a distorted march, and I liked the digs at Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto and Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The cinematography is also crisp and smooth, the scenery and landscapes almost dazzling and there are also a number of very effective scenes. Namely the Statue of Liberty climax, but the circus troupe encounter and the Radio Music City Hall shoot-out is also on the money. Overall, not Hitchcock's best, but definitely worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox


Four stories about the drug trade in Europe become intertwined over the course of this 6 part miniseries. In Germany a businessman is arrested on drug smuggling charges, and his wife attempts to save her family by continuing her husband's illegal trade. Meanwhile the British Home Secretary travels to Pakistan to negotiate an aid package that he hopes will stop the drug flow from that country. Even as he does this however his own daughter succumbs to heroin addiction, tearing their family apart. This is the miniseries on which the American film and miniseries were based. The original is far superior to its two decendants. The poverty and desperation of the third world are portrayed very well. It is stark, uncompromising and brutal.


Brilliant. Ranks along with Citizen Kane, The Matrix and Godfathers. Must see, at least for basset in her early days. Watch it.


Contains spoilers I had it recorded a while ago when it was on PBS but never got a chance to watch it (probably due to prejudice about having to sit through 5-6 hrs of Masterpiece Theater, with its BBC made for TV production style (no music, settings all in one room, no outdoor scenes flat TV look...)) But after watching the movie Traffic (which I thought was pretty good at that time,) I couldn't help digging up the Traffik tape to see what else could they have dwelled into with the extra 2 1/2 hr.

Boy, was my preconceptions wrong about this TV series. It is so much more involving than Traffic. The characters are fleshed out better so that their actions are more believable. And the whole subplot involving Pakistan completes the whole point of view of everyone in the whole supply chain, from the farmer to the end user. In Traffic, the Pakistan story was rewritten and reduced down to a good cop vs bad cop plot.

There was alot more meaningful discussion and debate about alcohol and other forms of drug, whereas in Traffic they mostly became passing references of no significance. Same with social issues, which in Traffik, were conveyed realistically w/o sounding preachy. Whereas in Traffic, the characters jus t blurted it out as a statement like the way they do it in those made for TV "issue of the week" movies.

There was no bad guy vs good guy in Traffik, even the dealer is portrayed as a junkie that sells to support his habit instead of the "nobody messes with me" type of person in Traffic.

The only down part is that since I watched Traffic not much before watching this, it was hard not to compare scene by scene, and even though the scenes were not the same, I knew what the outcome was going to be already. Thank god for the Pakistan story, which is different enough that it allowed me to enjoy it completely w/o thinking which scene it compares to. Although I was thrown off thinking the drugs were fused into the ceramic of the statues in which Helen brought back to Germany (as in the storyline of Traffic.) Thank god Traffik was not that hokey and far-fetched.


I was disappointed with the recent (2000) American remake of this English mini-series. Though it followed the plot line very closely, it seemed to leave the heart and soul of the original out. Not to mention adding shallow preachy heavy-handed 'messages'... So my advice is to skip the modern remake and stick with the original. It's much longer, but gripping and totally well done. Interesting, complex and textured, without the preachy self-righteousness... and it's beautifully shot, as well.

I find it galling that these heartless remakes of great overseas films get so much Hollywood fanfare at the Oscars. (Though I did like Benicio Del Torro getting some deserved praise...)


I've been playing this movie incessantly this month, and I just love it. I was around in the 60s (oh dear), so it is nostalgic in one sense. However, it's the funny premise, the snappy dialogue and the great performances that keep me watching.

Dr. Winston's reactions to Stephanie at the end of the movie are priceless. (I'd be more specific, but don't want to spoil it for anyone.) Who other than Matthau can play a man not entirely on the up-and-up and yet have us still love him? As for Bergman's costumes, I think she looks as dowdy as she's supposed to. I think "she was robbed" the one time that she appears in an evening gown. It doesn't suit her at all, which is too bad. I never liked it when I first saw it on her and I still don't.

Goldie won an Oscar for her role. People thought it was a groundbreaking performance at the time, and yet it's the one performance that I don't love as much as the others. She does have the right amount of sweetness and likability, however, which is important for this role.

And I agree - I thought Rick Lenz was great in it and it's too bad that his movie career didn't take off after this.

I hope more people watch this movie ... they'll love it!


I have to agree with all the previous commenter's--this is simply the best of all frothy comedies, with Bardot as sexy as Marilyn Monroe ever was, and definitely with a prettier face (maybe there's less mystique, but look how Marilyn paid for that.) I don't think I've ever seen such a succulent-looking female on screen, so perfect that even a gay man like me got excited by it--and not just for purely aesthetic reasons (if the idiot evangelicals really want to do their 'convert-a-queer' number, they are really going to need to up their standards, as no church mice need apply here...)Her breasts, the rest of her figure, her adorable voice, the hilarious way she shakes as she walks across a room...only to arrive in front of a man, breasts literally pointed as if in exquisite confrontation...

I think Boyer is one of the greatest leading men in all of film history. No one played opposite more great female stars than did he: Garbo, Dietrich, K. Hepburn, Colbert, and here Bardot, among many others. And he was also in 'Fanny' with Leslie Caron, and had small parts in 'How to Steal a Million' with A. Hepburn, as well as being in the Deneuve movie 'The April Fools' (although not opposite her.) The only thing I could disagree with in remarks is that even the loud, obnoxious music over the opening credits is appropriate--I mean, Bardot is not meant to be subtle on top of everything else, and her essential loudness (I don't mean her voice) is part of her irresistible and, one might even say, exemplary charm.

Vidal is thoroughly handsome, even if pouty Brigitte says toward the beginning 'I don't know why I am in love with you, you're not even handsome.'

Dear, dear Bardot! Truly one of the wonders of the 20th century, not to mention the joy that she is still with us, when so many of the truly characterful are passing away so fast, in all her eccentric glory.


"Subspecies," like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, "Subspecies" is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.

Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, "Subspecies" boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - "Subspecies" has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.

Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).

But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - "Subspecies" is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series.


I found this a very enjoyable light hearted comedy set in Wales with some truly funny sequences highlighting the rivalry between two funeral directors. The showbiz ideas used by Christopher Walken's character to liven up his funerals are genuinely laugh out loud moments.


It's been a long time since such an original, quite funny, black comedy has surfaced. If "Eating Raoul" is on your top 100 list, do yourself a favor and find "Undertaking Betty" immediately. The subject of death being funny has been attempted before (see Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in "Mortuary Academy"). While that movie has some brilliant moments of black comedy, "Undertaking Betty" is much more steady, with a better cast. Who could imagine that the undertaking business might be fertile ground for an original, uplifting, and heartfelt comedy? I was surprised and you will be too. I highly recommend seeing "Undertaking Betty" - MERK


This movie was clearly an early attempt for a new director, but still succeeded in being original and entertaining as well as in some moments thought-provoking. However, I have to say the story would not have come across as well without the stellar performance of Paul Anthony as Pip. He made the well written parts very believable and affecting, and the more weakly written parts much more bearable. Also, I have to mention the performance by Alan Cumming. It was refreshing to see him in a part like this. He brought a weight to his role that provided a very grounding element to the film. As for Paul Anthony: Who is this guy? Why haven't I seen more of him? Someone give him more roles, please!


Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role.

"Throw Momma From The Train" is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).

Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled "Hot Fire") and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: "100 Girls I'd Like To Pork."

Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's "star pupil" even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him "lardass" and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but "Throw Momma From The Train" piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.

For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, "swapping murders" as seen in Hitchcock's "Strangers On A Train."

As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)

Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. "You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here." "She's not a woman...She's the Terminator." "One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper." Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.

The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.

Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it.


Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) has a crazy life: His wife (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book and left him, he has a new budding romance with a girl named Beth (Kim Greist), he doesn't know how to start his book, and his students of his screen writing class are stranger than most. However, one student (Danny DeVito) is extra strange. He lives with his evil Momma (Anne Ramsey) and he can't get up the courage to kill her. So than he goes to Larry for help, making his life go from normal crazy, to extra crazy!

Stu Silver should have done more! The dialog, the characters, the whole script is near perfect! And Danny DeVito has proved to me he's more than a great actor: he's a great director! His kid's movie Matilda is among my favorite family movies and now this is one of my favorite comedies.

It's a black comedy, most jokes are about murder, but it's damn funny! All of the actors are doing their full potential, whether they're main characters (Billy Crystal) or just one-bit minor characters (Olivia Brown).

If you like comedy (Who doesn't?) than you'll like this! 8/10 stars.


This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses.


Now, Throw Momma from the Train was not a great comedy, but it is a load of fun and makes you laugh. The title may seem a little strange, but the entire movie isn't literally about that, although it is about something just as sinister.

Danny De Vito basically wants to kill his overbearing mother, and fast forward a little bit, some random and funny events take place. The premise is quite funny, and the things that Billy Crystal and Danny De Vito get into were great. Some of the scenes seemed to not fit in for me, but this didn't make it a bad movie.

For what it is, a wacky comedy, it pulls it off well and should be seen once just to say you saw it.


The one thing I really can't seem to forget about this movie, is its beginning: classic comedy, brilliantly crafted. I love it. See it for yourself (no spoilers here! :-). The sparring between DeVito and Crystal also glows in this movie, with DeVito as the perfect oppressed son. One of my favourites. Highly recommended for fans of Crystal.


For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.

I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ("Who Goes There") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change "always a mistake" to "usually a mistake"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...

Until seeing "The Thing", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing "The Thing", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.

If you haven't seen "The Thing", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced!


Obviously, the the responses here were written many years after the film was released and cannot be taken in context. Back in 1980 in post labour England, this film was bloody funny. We were glad of something to laugh about and Rising Damp, with its sympathetic mockery of a complete social strata, was one of the best British sitcoms of its period, if not ever. It struck a chord in almost everybody and in true British fashion, we laughed at the Rigsby in ourselves. America had nothing to touch this type of humour because self debasement was not amusing to our overseas cousins. Leonard Rossiter was one of Englands finest actors, on stage, on TV and in Movies. His commitment and professionalism were second to none. Richard Beckinsale was, although young, a perfect comedic foil to Rossiter and should, by all rights, be classed as an all time great. Had he not been taken so young, I feel sure he would, by now, be classified as one of Britains greatest comedy actors. Frances De la Tour found her finest television moment in Rising Damp and, for me, never quantified her undoubted ability with further roles. If you did not see the film at the time of its release, you are not qualified to comment, simply because you cannot understand why it was funny, the humour of the moment.


Flatliners left quite a noticeable impression in my head. The story is quick paced and leaves you constantly absorbed and at many times quite tense. Its about five remarkable student doctors (notably Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon) among whom, one of them has devised the mechanism of remaining dead (or getting flat-lined)for a few seconds and then coming back to life.

The procedure is quite 'complex' involving a plethora of medical knick-knacks - injections, electric blankets, oxygen masks and a variety of esoteric medical terms. I strongly suspect doctors coined all these words so that they never need to get layed off. But funnily they follow the KISS (Original version for engineers: Keep It Simple, stupid) (Extended version for doctors: Keep it Stupid, Simple) philosophy as well. At the risk of getting euthanized by some revenge-taking doctor reader, let me continue.

So the first guy who gets flat-lined hopes to find the answers to life which philosophy and religion cannot convincingly answer. He hopes to get it answered (and become famous) through applied science. He flat-lines for around two minutes and then comes back into our world left quite shaken. During death, he has a vision of an incident, when he was young, which left the strongest impression on his life. He killed another boy when he was kid, by accident, and he still feels responsible for it.

With the success of the first flat-liner, the others follow suit each of them extending their flat-line time further and further to test the limits of how long one can remain dead and experience life after death.

Meanwhile monsters from the past and future, keep coming back to haunt them after their flat-line experience. The first flat-liner is haunted by a young kid who tortures him when he is alone. The second who camera-ed all the women he took to bed, sees television sets all over playing his videos. The third is haunted by a young girl who he teased in school. The fourth is haunted by her suicide-dead father, for whom she feels responsible.

All of them are driven insane by these haunting and obsessions and think that the past seems to want to take revenge on them. The main focus on getting flat-lined is that your entire life passes through your eyes, at the moment of 'dying', whatever stage that is, and you are left mostly with the strongest impressions of life in your mind. Since they didn't die these strong impressions have somehow resurfaced and have become the focus of their lives.

All of them somehow come to terms with (and extinguish) their past demons. All of them except the first one who realizes the only way he can move on through life is getting flat-lined AGAIN. During this flat-line session, he sees himself getting flat-lined the first time and also sees the boy he killed, trying to kill him this time round. The boy kills him this time for a few minutes and in doing so has sought revenge. For a few minutes in the movie one is left wondering if he gets to come back. Thankfully (because most of us like happy endings) the boy absolves him of his past and he comes back to life again.


Very suspenseful, surprisingly intelligent film about five medical students flatlining themselves and then being resuscitated to share their experiences of death and what lies beyond. Joel Schumacher directs with some skill - creating some very eerie scenes as well as particularly beautiful ones. The visions of death are not what viewers might expect nor is that which awaits us all when we go - thanks to screenwriter Peter Filardi who really did an outstanding job coming up with this story. While the creativity of the story is impressive, the story has many holes as well, particularly in the logic department and believability factors. Notwithstanding all of that Flatliners is a good effective film because of the script, the direction which again is very surreal at times, and the acting which brings four very talented actors and William Baldwin together. This core of actors acts and reacts off each other very nicely. Keifer Sutherland does a very impressive job as the head of the group - the one who comes up with the idea to die and be born again. He also manages to portray a man- a young man - with a damaging, destructive secret from his past. Kevin Bacon is fine as the most pragmatic and skeptical of the group. Oliver Platt is really good as the voice of reason and human fears. Platt has some really good lines and plays the paranoia well. Yes, Julia Roberts is here too and very good. the actors do best though by playing off each other and making us believe they are such good friends. I was duly impressed with much of Flatliners but more than anything else the story affected me the most. The scene with that dog hobbling around the street just one of those powerful images evoked as were many of the "flashback" scenes.


Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's "surreal moments". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has "pulled" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo Díaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer/Director Michael Parness.


I usually steer clear of Film Festivals and don't enjoy slap-stick comedy but I must say that this picture was great. I immediately recognized David Krumholtz from the TV show "Numbers" and Lorraine Bracco, Roseanne Arquette and Karen Black were at their usual best. This is comedy at an incredibly high level with visual, spoken and satirical interludes that kept the audience, and me, laughing throughout a rather deep rooted plot.

Kudos to Mr. Parness for dealing with a delicate, but real, subject in a manner that can be enjoyed but fully absorbed by his audience at every level of intellect. The plot stays intact throughout the film and the comedic relief adds to the message without being laid on so thick as to distort. The blending of segways is done beautifully and the overall product is wonderfully tasteful.

I can definitely state that this film is one that will go a long way and should be seen by audiences of all ages; the problem is real and so is the powerful impact of this production.


It's pretty surprising that this wonderful film was made in 1949, as Hollywood generally had its collective heads in the sand concerning black and white issues at that time. The film deserves strong kudos for taking this stand, for having exceptional acting from its mostly lesser-known cast and for the super-intelligent script that doesn't insult the audience or take the easy way out when it comes to white racism. Plus, with the movie's rather modest budget and fast running time, it does an amazing job!

Juano Hernandez (an exceptional actor who played supporting roles in many films of the era) is a proud black man who is accused of murdering a white man in the South. The crowd could really care less about the details--they are just hell-bent on a hanging. And, despite his commitment to the law, the one lawyer in town who has agreed to defend him also assumes he is guilty and doesn't really want to know the truth--just delay the hanging until they could try and convict him and then have a LEGAL hanging! Fortunately, a young white man (Claude Jarmin) begins to wonder about Juano's innocence and begins seeking out the truth. At this point, the best character in this wonderful drama is introduced--played by Elizabeth Patterson (the old lady who later played Mrs. Trumbull on I LOVE LUCY). She single-handedly steals the show as the white person with not only a conscience but the will and determination to stand up for the black man. At one wonderful point in the film, a mob is trying to push past her to get to the prisoner to kill him, but she stands very firm and forces them to back down. There is a lot more to this rather complicated but intelligently written story, but I'll leave it to you to see it for yourself. See it with your kids if you have a chance--it will open up some amazing dialog about how far race relations have come in the last 50 years.

By the way, apparently 1949 was a great year for Hollywood finally addressing race prejudice head on, as Twentieth-Century Fox also released "Pinky"--an equally effective and strong film about racism, interracial marriage and even rape! See both films if you can.


This was a very funny movie, not Oscar-worthy, but definately the best dollar I've ever spent at Blockbuster! Rupert Penry Jones is a shining star, and very well might be the new Jude Law! So, if you're in the mood for a British Teen Flick- RENT IT!!


It would appear that some previous reviewers may have had their expectations set a bit too high going into this film. I found it scanning the satellite channels for something (not knowing what) and happened upon it. I thought by the title it might be one of the myriad soft-core porn flicks appearing regularly on the movie channels but I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was some male frontal nudity (in fact, more than your typical soft-core title -- go figure!), this was not the focus of the film. It was just fun.

Don't be deceived by my tastes: my recent screenings have included Before Night Falls and Europa, Europa (both geat, IMHO). But I also enjoy total mental shutdown when watching a movie. Virtual Sexuality did this for me and that's not a bad thing!


In one of the better movies of the year, Tom Hanks stars as Congressman Charlie Wilson in this sardonically funny and extremely relevant (given reasonably current events) historical comedy-drama surrounding the 1980s Afghan/Soviet fiasco. The Soviets were attacking Afghanistan killing hundreds of people. Why should anyone care? People are dying, right? No, the reason the United States got involved through Charlie Wilson was because the Afghans, in fear they would get blown to sh_t, started illegally coming into Pakistan which in turn p_ssed Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq off. Charlie Wilson in an effort to fix this situation teamed up with the sixth richest woman and religious fanatic in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) and a amusing and robust American spy for the CIA, Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to help supply Afghans with high-tech weapons to destroy Soviet fight air-craft that would try and attack their land.

Although certainly not a serious Oscar contender for Best Picture, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is probably one of the best of the many political films of the year. Academy Award Winner Mike Nichols provides solid directing as to be expected while Emmy Award Winner Aaron Sorkin (Sport's Night, The West Wing) provides a remarkable screenplay that near-flawlessly balances comedy and drama. The acting is great for the most part as well. Tom Hanks delivers his best and most enjoyable performance since his 2000 Oscar-nominated turn as a FedEx worker stranded on a tropical island in 'Cast Away'. Hanks takes a slimy character like Wilson and with his trademark charm turns him into a likable guy. Amy Adams and Ned Beatty are reliable as always, but the real stand-out performance of the film is from Philip Seymour Hoffman. Arguably the finest actor working in the film industry today, Hoffman takes a small supporting role and upstages everyone around him. From his first scene where he's screaming at his boss before violently breaking his window, Hoffman sucks you in. The only disappointing cast member is unsurprisingly overrated Hollywood starlet Julia Roberts. Hamming her way through yet another movie, Roberts' overbearing and over-the-top portrayal of a rich Texas oil woman hits all the wrong notes and is at most times flat-out annoying. At 97 minutes, the movie is short and sweet, and that isn't to say it doesn't drag at some points but when it does drag it's for a very brief amount of time.

In conclusion, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not a perfect film by any means, but it's certainly worth a look. Grade: B+


I had heard interesting critics on this movie. I believed it was a love story but I wasn't sure what was the plot about. So, when I finally saw it, I found myself in the middle of a love relationship between the ex-con Isabel (Isabel Ampudia) and the junkie Rufo (Sebastián Haro). So, a love story but not probably what I was expecting.

The movie is focused on Isabel, as she struggles to get back into society. She doesn't want to return back to her neighborhood and she finds herself without a home or anywhere to go. So, while she just experiences those first hours of freedom after being released from jail she came across Rufo, an old acquittance of her which while she was in had become a junkie and lives on the streets. Not having where to go, and without money or feasible source of income, she decides to join Rufo on his residence: a covered area on a lonely street.

The story by itself is moving. It explains how the, impossible, relationship between Isabel and Rufo gets deeper until the the almost final twist of the movie.

Definitely, the movie is worth watching. Sebastián Haro is splendid in his role of the junkie. A person being able of both being an innocent and tender giving person and a ruthless street scum. Just depending whom deals him with. I believe his role.

On the other hand, I don't quite believe the role of Isabel Ampudia. Although the movie tries to show the bitterness inside her through several scenes, she is not capable to make me believe it. She is in a way too sweet and too honest for which might be expected of somebody on the same situation.

The movie tries to show a love on a desperate situation. It is a enjoyable movie. But the feeling I get when the movie ends is that Isabel, with the way of thinking and acting she has, would never have arrived to that situation. Her role, partly because of the script, partly because of the acting is difficult to believe.

I specially like the ending, and because of it I have raised my rating one or two points. I liked its bittersweetness and the fact of showing that sometimes, survival instinct is above other more spiritual considerations as love.

Summarizing, an interesting movie, but it lacked some punch to be a total "must see".


Not having seen the film in its commercial debut, we just caught with it via DVD. Expecting the worst, "Hitch" proved to be a pleasant experience because of the three principals in it. Thanks to Andy Tenant's direction, the film has an easy pace, and while predictable, the comedy has some winning moments.

Hitch is a sort of "date coordinator" for losers like Albert, who is not exactly what one would consider a hunk. Yet, Albert is a genuine guy who, without some professional help would go unnoticed by the same women he would like to take out. Enter Hitch, to prepare him to overcome the obstacles that he can't overcome, and even though Albert stays overweight and never gets to master social graces, he conquers us because he is a real, in sharp contrast with all the phonies making the rounds in Manhattan.

The basic mistake most production designers make, when preparing locales for Hollywood films, is how out of touch with reality they are. The apartments in which they situate these characters are so rare to find that only by the magic of the movies can these people live in places likes these. Evidently most of the movie people are dealing with fantasy since most city dwellers would kill for spaces so fabulous as the ones they show in the movies, let alone these same people depicted in the film would not be able to afford them.

Will Smith is a charismatic actor. He has a disarming way to charm without doing much. The surprise of the movie though, is Kevin James, who as the overweight Albert, not only win us over, but he proves he can hold his own in his scenes with Mr. Smith. Eva Mendez is fine as the main interest of Hitch. In minor roles we see Adam Arkin, Amber Valletta, Michael Rappaport, and Phillip Bosco, among others.

"Hitch" is a fun film to watch thanks to the inspired direction by Andy Tenant.


OK, OK, I must say I was impressed. It's hard to say what I'm more impressed with: my ability to choose the right romantic comedy to watch so that I don't gouge my eyes out, or the movie itself. Either way, "Hitch" was pretty darn good. Hey, it was good enough for me to watch twice. Will Smith was funny and good. Kevin James was just hilarious, and absolutely essential for the movie. As much as this movie centered around Hitch (Will Smith), without Kevin James it's just not the same.

The story is: Hitch is a match maker that helps the guy woo the girl. His job is to create the chance for the girl to notice the guy when she otherwise wouldn't. After the encounter, the rest is all up to the guy to make or break the relationship. He works on referral only and stays largely unnoticed during the process. Albert (Kevin James) is Hitch's project this time around, and Albert has eyes on Allegra Cole (Amber Valleta) a Paris Hilton type figure. While that plot unfolds, Hitch himself has eyes on Sara (Eva Mendes), a sharp, independent, fanged gossip columnist that wants nothing to do with a relationship.

The two stories make for some funny moments and they tie together for a bit of a quagmire. Of course no love story is complete without the obligatory miscommunication, misunderstanding, or mishap to send the guy chasing after the girl. Fortunately, they make it brief and unsappy. Hitch was a fun and funny movie that flowed very well and rolled along without a hitch.


And nothing wrong in that! Heartily endorse the comments of boblipton and Snow Leopard.

I'm thrilled to find this movie is available on US DVD - I've only ever seen it through once - I persuaded the Goethe Institute here in London to show it in their Conrad Veidt season some years ago - and long to see it again.

Barrymore is resplendent when engaged, as in this movie, possibly because of the prick of having a renowned German actor as a foil. And Veidt is such a wonderful scene stealer (doesn't he pick his nose at one point?) This is one of the seminal films to connect 'Dr Jekyll' with '20th Century', 'Grand Hotel' or 'Midnight'; and 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' or 'The Student of Prague' with 'The Spy in Bladk', 'Contraband' and 'Casablanca'.

See it!


Soul's Midnight stars Armande Assante (Simon) who stared in "The Mambo Kings" and Elizabeth Bennett (Alicia Milford). Together with Sexy vampire vixen, Lucila Sola (Iris), Simon lures pregnant Alicia and her husband Charles into the netherworld of Soul's Midnight. Assante sinks his fangs into the script by writers Brian and Jason Cleveland and you enjoy watching him and Iris kill. Alicia and Charles (Robert Floyd) try to stay alive while gore keeps your lust for blood sated.

(spoiler alert) In today's jaded landscape, it comes as no surprise that a back-stabbing preacher gets bitten. Set looks cool  lots of detail at the Borgo Hotel and cool special effects at the end. I had a lot of fun watching this movie  it doesn't take itself too seriously and looks great.


Commissaire Mattei(André Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.

Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volonté)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.

It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.

Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volonté, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volonté-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volonté is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.

Melville is wrong. Volonté give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.

Also André Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.

Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.

We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volonté is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?

In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.

The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volonté escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.

Michael Zabel


I managed to see the MTV premiere of this movie last night and I needed to tell everyone that this movie brought the thunder. Obviously this movie will be most enjoyed by fans of the D as it has plenty of in-jokes for those that have seen the HBO series and has more than enough D for newer fans and the mass of soon-to-be converts. The music really shines with the new songs "Kickapoo" (which is much better than it sounds), "Master Exploder" (possibly the 3rd best song in the world) and "Dude (I totally miss you)". There are a load of excellent scenes (the car chase, the rock-off, the meeting) and cameos (including Dave Grohl as Satan!). I really could go on for hours but I don't want to give the movie away. Go see it. You won't be disappointed.


(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details)

IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.

The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.

I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.


Worth the admission price for the Rock-off alone!! Any D fan will LOVE this movie (even though it's a tad short) and cameos from John C Reilly, Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins, Meatloaf and Dave Grohl (just about recognisable) prove that the D rock hard enough for anyone. Even Dio... The sasquatch/mushroom scene is going to become an instant classic (I don't want to say any more and be accused of putting spoilers in here). Fans of the original HBO series will see a couple of nods to the D's early on-screen appearances in characters such as Lee and the open mic host. I only wish that they had played a few of the songs from the first album and the omission of 'the government totally sucks' from the POD album is also a shame. Other than that this movie rocks. Obey the D!


When I first watched Flatliners, I was amazed. It had all the necessary features of a good movie: the cast was superb, the plot was superb, and in the case of thrillers, there was genuine "thrills" throughout.

Keifer Sutherland offered a marvelous performance as the male lead in the piece, portraying a scientist who believes he can find the answers to life and death by killing himself and then coming back to life, essentially "stealing" death's secrets away. Kevin Bacon offers an excellent performance as the more morally decent counterpart to Keifer, while Julia Roberts offers her most convincing role. William Baldwin portrays a student who excels in class and, apparently, intercourse. And Oliver Platt, in another outstanding performance, portrays the voice of reason for the group and the most innocent.

The story is relatively simple, yet original, and the acting is refreshing-- definitely a stand out film for the genre, and one that has set the standard for measuring other thrillers for me.

8/10.


It may be a little creaky now, and it certainly can never have the impact it once had, but this is still a thrilling reminder of what Michael Jackson could once do. Looking back on it now for the first time since its initial prominence, I was struck not by the horror trappings - quaint, but fun, and Vincent Price has never sounded so genuinely, un-camply (sic?) menacing - than its absorption of the horror film, allowing Jackson, behind genre and make-up, to give us a bravely revealing portrait of male sexuality.

Because THRILLER isn't really about horror, in the way horror isn't really about horror: it is about that age-old theme, the sexual awakening of a young woman. The film opens in a cinema, with Jackson's girlfriend uncomfortable with the imagery, and the aggressively gendered response. Of course, she is on a date, and she is less scared by the film than what she knows will be expected by her boyfriend.

The mainstream imagery of the film they watch, the group atmosphere all suggest the socially conditioned expectations. This leads her not only to think of the body in disgust - hence all the decaying ghouls; the loss of her virginity is seen as a kind of death - but the sexual rite is not just about her boyfriend, but her peers, her society, hence its visualisation as a gang violation.

This is brilliant, disturbing stuff, the best thing director Landis has ever done. Jackson, the most popular artist on the planet, was still willing to show that the fixed image of a star contained multitudes, not all of them reassuring. The song itself has held up remarkably well, the creepy, insistent bass rhythms, the extraordinarily salacious lyrics, the beautiful 70s disco ecstasy tailing the chorus, shattering timelessness, revealing the milky desire behind the fear.


For those who remember this video's initial impact, it will never be forgotten, and a viewing of Thriller is all that's needed to feel twelve years old again. But, while it's a great video, it's not perfect, even though it seemed like it at the time. When this video first came out, nobody had ever seen anything like it before. Now the music video medium has grown by leaps and bounds, and a fresh viewing of Thriller will reveal its faults. Why was it necessary to deconstruct the song? When Michael Jackson is walking beside the girl after they leave the movie theatre, he sings all the verses of the song, skipping the choruses. After he becomes a zombie, when it comes time for him to sing again, his zombie makeup inexplicably disappears, and he sings the chorus again, and again, and again, as if to make up for its previous absence. This may have been the first time a song had ever been deconstruct to fit the visuals in a music video, but it certainly wasn't the last time. It has continued to be a problem in the age of MTV. The best videos, like Jackson's Billie Jean and Beat It, have used visuals to serve the music, not the other way around. Still, Thriller is great fun, and an absolute must on Halloween.


Although I am not a Michael Jackson fan, I like some of his early songs and some from Jackson 5 too. 'Thriller' is one of his great songs and it comes from the best-selling album ever with the same title. As for the video, it is awesome, one of Michael's best, but also very eccentric and weird.

There is a story behind this video, but it's so complex that even I can't fully understand it. It's freaky. The freakiest things are Jackson's transformation into a werewolf, his evil red eyes at the end (like a werewolf) and those dead people dancing.

The video is very dark, thrilling, chilly and original. There are great sceneries and settings. The music itself is full of life and rhythm, characteristic from the good old pop from the 80's.

I like Vincent Price's soliloquy. He does a great narration with his distinctive and unique voice and his evil laughter at the end is awesome! My favorite videos of the 'King of Pop' are "Billie Jean" and "Don't stop 'til you get enough" (both among his best songs).


Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While "art" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror/comedy.

Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is "different" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, "Thriller." However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.

It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson  though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings  there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again!


How is bear´s paw, elephant´s trunk or monkey´s brain for dinner? Let Tsui Hark tell you in this wonderful and lighthearted comedy about the art of cooking the traditional(?) Chinese way.

This movie shares the common structure of an American sports movie, but instead of focusing on baseball it centers around cooking which makes it all the more interesting. I even think Leslie Cheung´s character look a lot like Charlie Sheen in Major League...

This movie also contains a bit of Zhao Wen Zhao vs Xiong Xin Xin fighting (love seeing more of that after The Blade) and a quite funny in-joke concerning a Leon Lai pop song...

Perhaps not the ideal movie for the strict vegetarian though.


I find it remarkable that so little was actually done with the story of the a-bomb and it's development for decades after the Manhattan Project was completed. My suspicion is that this was due to serious fears in the movie and entertainment industries (in the 1950s through the 1970s) with "McCarthyism" and related national security phobias (including the Hollywood blacklist). There was one film in the 1950s (with Robert Taylor) about Col. Paul Tibbits who flew the Enola Gay in the Hiroshima bombing, but otherwise nothing else. One could glance at a side issue tragedy (the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis soon after the delivery of the bombs to Tinian) in Robert Shaw's description of the shark attacks on the survivors in JAWS. But the actual trials and tribulations of Groves, Oppenheimer, and their team was not considered film-able.

And then in 1989 two films appeared. I have reviewed one already (DAY ONE) which I feel is the better of the two in discussing the lengthy technical and emotional and political problems in the Manhattan Project. The acting of Brian Dennehy as General Groves and David Strahairn as Oppenheimer was first rate and neatly balanced. Small side vignettes concerning the anti-bomb crusade of Szilard (Michael Tucker) help fill out the story well.

That's the problem here. Paul Newman is a great actor (as is Mr. Dennehy) but Newman approached Groves in a different way that while not dreadful is lesser than Dennehy's intelligent but soft spoken military brass. Newman seems too popped eyed about the possibility of the weapon as the biggest stick to confront the other boys in the after-school yard with. Yes it certainly was, but the real Groves would have been more like Dennehy keeping his mind not on that great toy of the future but on the business of creating that great toy.

Dwight Schultz's performance as Oppeheimer helps maintain the film's basically interesting and good production, aided by Bonnie Bedelia as his wife. But the most interesting aspect of this film is in the upgrading of the two tragedies of Daghlian and Slotin, in particular the latter, in the character of John Cusack's Merriman. Inevitably in all technological advances people are killed. It's just that these two tragedies (on top of the tens of thousands that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) brought home the dangers of the new unleashed power even in a so-called peaceful, controlled experiment. The two tragedies (particularly Louis Slotin's slow, agonizing death by radiation poisoning) showed how much care was needed in using atomic power - and how the barest of chances could still cause disaster. The only really different thing I saw in Cusack's performance (and the script) and the actual incident with Slotin was that Slotin actually took some time after the accident to figure out where all his fellow research scientists were when they were hit by the radiation from the accident (he was able to show that only he got the full effect of the accidental blast, so that only relatively minor treatment would be needed by the others). Perhaps the full story of Slotin's actions was too technical for the screen, but given the humongous pain he suffered in the end that he took time off to think of the others shows what a first rate person he really was.


I saw this again today for the first time in about 6 years. I had forgotten how well acted this movie is. Paul Newman gets the billing, but Dwight Schultz holds his own and shows how good an actor he really is.


I know one is not supposed to comment on other users' comments, but I will say that a lot of the negative reviews seem to come from people who already knew quite a lot about the Manhattan Project and were annoyed at things that were left out. (From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such.) I knew very little before watching the film, however, and found it rivetting. Dwight Schultz is absolutely mesmeric as Oppenheimer - a truly magnetic, charismatic presence, an inspired piece of casting that makes me wonder why he isn't given better roles and more leading parts. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five.


OK, now at first i thought this was going to be another cheesy romantic comedy, which held back on the comedy but this wasn't. I mean how could it have been with the fabulous Amanda Bynes staring in it! She was amazing, really funny & is still stunning! The boys in it were also extremely fit, one major reason for going girls! The plot is strongly based upon the Shakespeare play 'Twelfth Night', as it was extremely similar, there was even a spider called malvolio, which belonged to the malvolio like character. The script was really well written and pulled together and it was very witty. The football skills in it were also amazing, it even made me think of playing football myself! Anyway, to sum it up this is a light hearted film about young romance, which gets very confusing! Go and see it!


If you want to really terrify people, choose the Devil as your subject. After all, a good deal of the population believe that he is real. Therefore you are plugging into a whole meaty swathe of pre-existing religious and mythological imagery. And bound to cause quite a few nightmares in your young audience.

This episode had all the appearance of a Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, having finished watching it I flicked over to another channel which was playing a recent Bond film and quite frankly couldn't split a hair between the differences in SFX. With a minimal cast, restricted by its situation on a space station; complete with overwhelming panoramic views of an imploding universe, it was as claustrophobic and intense as Alien or Event Horison. The black hole outside made it feel as if the black hole's weight of dark matter was pressing the station onto the planet and to Whatever was sealed inside. And as the horror is intensified by the knowledge that the Dr and Rose are stranded, the sinister Ood start channelling a disembodied voice and then the characters start being picked off one by one...

This has all the best qualities of the cream of this new Dr Who endeavour; Girl in the Fireplace and the Empty Child. Emotionally engaging, frightening and humorous all without seeming cheesy. This is far scarier than any amount of flying Daleks. But it has to be asked, is this really suitable viewing for children? This is not a family friendly episode. Pity the poor parent who has to put their kids to bed after this one. I'm not sure I even want to see what happens next!


For the sake of propaganda during World War II, Sherlock Holmes was moved into the then-present. One of the results is "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," starring a top Holmes, Basil Rathbone, along with Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, Dennis Hoey and Kaaren Verne. It is Holmes' assignment to deliver a scientist, Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) and his weapon design to the British government before the Germans can get him. Once the man reaches England, however, his troubles are just beginning. Can Holmes decode the message Dr. Tobel left before falling into the hands of the vicious Moriarity, save the weapon and possibly the scientist too? This is an effective Holmes story, set in the atmosphere of Switzerland and blackout England. The series worked just fine in the present day. It was not without its problems, but those problems had nothing to do with the time period. Whose idea was it to make Watson an idiot? Nigel Bruce's characterization - aided and abetted by the scripts - has always been the false note. I much prefer the characterization of Edward Hardwicke in the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series - there, he's attractive, intelligent and a believable companion for Holmes. In the Rathbone series, Holmes is often condescending and treats Watson like the bumbling fool that he is. However, in this particular film, Watson has a chance to be quite helpful in several parts.

I admit to being a complete sap for Rathbone's recitation from Richard II - "...this blessed plot, this earth, this England" - I can't imagine how much it meant to the Brits watching the film in 1942. Sherlock Holmes really served his purpose.


A brilliant Sherlock Holmes adventure starring the brilliant Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Despite many other actors brilliantly playing Holmes and Watson and making a great job of it- Rathbone and Bruce will always be the best two.

Holmes takes a Professor Tobell from Switzerland to London. Tobell is wanted by the Nazi's. He has a bomb sight that could win the Second World War. His bomb-site has been split into four parts, each hidden in books. Tobell agrees to give his bomb-site to the British government. On the night of his arrival, Tobell goes to the house of his girlfriend. He has drawn some figures of men, if Tobell was to disappear, the lady was to give the drawings to Holmes. On his journey home he is attacked, but a Policeman stops this and the attacker runs away. Tobell is happy for the British government to use his bomb-site but refuses to give it to them, Tobell wants to look after it. The bomb-site is split into four parts, each part completely useless without the other. He gives one part each of this bomb-site to one of his scientist friends. Then Holmes's greatest fear happens, Tobell goes missing. Holmes visits the young lady Tobell was with the night he was attacked. She tells him about the drawings. The drawings have been stolen. She says only one man came in during the time Tobell left, to fix the light-bulb. The man she describes is Professor Moriarty. He is working for the Nazi's. Seen as he has the drawings, Holmes is done for. But he finds the writing pad he used and using Science, he manages to see what Tobell drew by looking at the next page on the pad. He sees it's code. He sees it's the name of four scientists. The first three he works out the code for, but he can't work out the fourth. The three scientists he has worked out have been murdered and the bomb-site has been taken. Holmes can't work out the fourth scientist, but neither can Moriarty. Disguised as a sailor, Holmes manages to get in Moriarty's office. Moriarty sees straight away it's Holmes, puts him in a box and has him thrown in the sea. But Watson and Lestrade insist they search the box and find Holmes in it. It's now obvious Moriarty is at large. Holmes manages to work out the fourth code, a Frederick Hoffner. Holmes gets round to his house straight away and get Hoffner and the decisive fourth part to safety. Holmes now needs to get Moriarty charged for working with the Nazi's. He pretends to be Hoffner. Moriarty works out the fourth code and gets two men to go round and get Hoffner. They take him back and he comes face to face with Moriarty. Meanwhile Tobell is not in a good way, he has been tortured and tortured to get the name of the fourth scientist. Moriarty has had it with Holmes now, he has got him and his death must be a long one for Holmes. The idea is to put him in his hospital, put a needle in his vein and watch him die of blood loss, drop by drop. Watson runs in and saves the day though. Moriarty gets away, but Holmes was only careless enough to leave Moriarty's trap door open. Moriarty plunges sixty feet.

So, Moriarty dead. No. He makes his final outing in the film 'The Woman in Green' but in 'Green' he is definitely dead, a suicide, he jumps off his roof. It was Moriarty's second of three appearances in the Rathbone series, a different actor playing him on each occasion. His first appearance in 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' was played by George Zucco, his second in this film he was played by Lionell Atwill and Henry Daniels plays him in his final outing in 'The Woman in Green' The first three Holmes films made by Universal were set in the war as Holmes triumphs over the Nazi's. 'The Voice of Terror' was the first, then this film and then 'Sherlock Holmes In Washington' Then it was back to Victorianish times, with definite relations to Edwardian and Georgian (George the fifth and sixth) times. This film had a close link to the Sherlock Holmes short story 'The Dancing Men' which can be found in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' A great film, though obvious propaganda, it was a brilliant Holmes outing.


I recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a "look", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this.


Crossfire (1947)

Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie

It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.

You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.

Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.

Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows.

The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.

The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still.