The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means 'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian... - Hum... Is that so ?

Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote "In The Days of Perky Pat") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!)

The nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? "Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the players' minds" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures (helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer.

Playing eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess').

What game would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged in the world ?

And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ???

Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of virtuality in virtuality in reality.


I always believed that a film that's plot is centred around a virtual reality video game never sounds as though it's going to be anything special but eXistenZ proved I couldn't have been more wrong. This film is unbelievable and, whilst highly entertaining, offers so much more than that. From start to finish, this film has you conceptualising to the point where you can have so many ideas, you can not make a final conclusion. David Cronenberg has a talent for this as he does so many things.

eXistenZ is pure Cronenberg; the way it's written and the way it's directed is very unique to his style and that can only be a good thing. Cronenberg set himself a clear target with this film and that was to keep the audience guessing which he did with apparent ease. His fondness for the grotesque is not as predominant in this film as it is in The Fly or Naked Lunch but there are still some elements such as the game pods and how they are made that can make the audience wince. With regards to his earlier work, eXistenZ is more a combination of Videodrome and a less violent Scanners, a pretty awesome combination. Setting the film in the not too distant future was a really good decision as it allowed Cronenberg to be extremely imaginative with the films surroundings and also enabled him to visualise more concepts, allowing for less inhibited writing. It was important that the film didn't become over confusing and Cronenberg avoided this very well by keeping things relatively simple. Besides, if he wanted to make an unwatchable film, he'd know how to do it a lot better than this.

eXistenZ boasts an extremely talented cast of character actors and all perform very well. Jennifer Jason Leigh gives the standout performance as the game designer who spends more time out of reality than in to it. Leigh is sexy and commanding in her role as Allegra and she really gets her teeth in to the role. The emotional range she shows in the film is particularly impressive, making her completely believable (if you can believe anything). Jude Law is also good and is very convincing in his character's fear of implantation. The chemistry between these two is very electric and gives the film an extra bit of flavour. Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe are just two of the great actors in support who add further depth to the film with very colourful performances. The cast of the film isn't huge but eXistenZ definitely has the 'quality is better than quantity' ethic which works very well.

As well as being entertaining and thought provoking, eXistenZ touches social issues such as control and loss of self. This further demonstrates the film as an intellectual vessel and could also explain why it wasn't a huge Hollywood hit. eXistenZ has so much to offer and although it isn't to everyone's taste, those who like Cronenberg's work or who like science fiction will almost be certain to like this film. It is one of those films that needs to be watched with an open mind but it really is something special.


So let's begin!)))

The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...

My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!

I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow.

The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)

Recommend with confidence!))))


WARNING: PLOT SPOILER

The always-abnormal movies of David Cronenberg certainly are an acquired taste. Fans of his earlier films will probably like `eXistenZ', but it definitely isn't one for the squeamish. All of the usual elements are here. A game pod made out of skin (hooked into your back), buckets of blood, a gun made out of bones, and a manic mechanic to name but a few. The result is good in parts, bad in parts, and just plain weird in others. But one thing the film has is undeniable originality.

Despite the excessive use of weirdness it does prove a point- virtual reality games can have a dangerous effect on some people. In the movie, a character shoots someone dead claiming that he was `annoying' (assuming that she was still in the game). But it leaves the question as to whether that really happened or if it was an occurrence in this stunningly life-like game. `eXistenZ' leads to a conclusion that can be responded to in several ways.

Despite some extra gadgets and gook, it was simply your classic `it was all a dream or was it' twist. It is a smart surprise and answers a few questions, but giving that the entire film was leading up to this moment is a bit disappointing. At only 97 minutes it could have went on a bit longer too. In a peculiar way the film raises moral issues but answers them in a violent and rather inappropriate way.

Jennifer Jason Leigh appears here in her first big role in quite a while. But her character doesn't have enough qualities to make her jump off the screen or even give her a likeable character. Jude Law on the other hand (equipped with a curious American accent) is good as your average Joe sucked into this abnormal world. We see the film through his perspective.

`eXistenZ' is far from flawless but it certainly is a movie experience to remember. There's tonnes of weird characteristics to match the similar styles of David Lynch (what next? - being consumed by a question mark?!?!?!). It definitely isn't for all tastes but it is rewarding enough to recommend. My IMDb rating: 6.2/10.


eXistenZ combines director David Cronenberg's traditional love of blood and gore and exploding heads with the more confusing aspects of a reality twisting David Lynch film. And it actually works effectively. I won't bother trying to give even the bare bones of a plot synopsis here because it'll only cause more confusion. All you need to know is that the film is about a virtual reality computer game that is so incredibly lifelike that it becomes difficult to tell the difference between reality and virtual reality. The film almost seems to abandon its technology fearing point at the end, but then it throws in the final twist in the very last line of dialogue.

There's also some very gross sexual imagery based around the 'bio-ports' in the protagonists backs, as well as some very gross acting from Jude Law. He manages to come off as naive and stupid and boring and any other annoying habit you can care to think of. Jason Jennifer Leigh comes off much better, and everyone else can be called a supporting character, including Willem Dafoe in a functional, if unspectacular, role as a money-crazed mechanic. Overall, eXistenZ is a very effective sci-fi film about the possibilities technology can present and the possible consequences it will receive.


eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic "pods" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.

But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.

Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns !


The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ.


This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.


eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one...


Now being a fan of sci fi, the trailer for this film looked a bit too, how do i put it, hollywood. But after watching it i can gladly say it has impressed me greatly. Jude is a class actor and miss Leigh pulls it off better than she did in Delores Clairborne. It brings films like The Matrix, 12 Monkeys and The Cell into mind, which might not sound that appealing, but it truly is one of the best films i have seen.


my favorite science fiction, incredible ride through mistrust and the warping of reality. Probably the best performance I have ever seen Jude Law play. Incredibly original with interesting character developments and a story line that twists and turns so rapidly that it takes a couple of minutes after the film to fully grasps its genius. Even more fun watching it again for the end changes the beginning.


A bit "the movie in the movie" case, or as the theme is virtual game here, which is the reality or even more frightening which reality is the "real" one.As any Cronenberg there are organic things, like the pod and that wonderful idea:the organic gun, a weapon made of bones and tissues that shoots teeth. If there are some slower moments, the sets, designs and ideas are there with some thoughts of revolution. Can be not liked because the way the movie is happening is quite unusual and sometimes disturbing, but it's definitely worth it.


This was a great movie, I would compare it to the movie The Game. You get to the end of the flick and cant move... your brain has been removed and shaken (not stirred) and put back in your head. Dont plan anything after this movie, you will need time to think about what just happened.

Dont come to this movie expecting the Matrix style multi millions spent on special effects, this movies special effects come from the actors, they keep you involved, no, they suck you in and dont let go for the entire duration of the movie. Great acting, great plot... very enjoyable film, I cant say enough. Also very original plot, plenty of twists and ideas that I would have never thought of. The ending is abrupt and leaves you hanging wondering, was that real? Is this really the end? Good ending, not saying that it is bad... just leaves you wondering, and a little frazzled.

Great movie for those who like action, like a good plot (dont get up for a bathroom break on this movie, you will come back lost) and like mind games, because thats exactly in a nutshell what this is.


yes, i have noticed that there are 347 other comments, i think that is a good sign for a movie, even if some are negative. i have seen this movie 2 and a half times. i adore it and would watch it again. it is very smart, but i can understand why some people would hate it. they don't get it's appeal. yes, i have a weird taste in movies, but this is a great movie. some of the lines are just so quick, like the whole scene in the chinese restaurant. i started dying laughing. that and when he was in the assembly line talking to the contact. jude law was wonderful, though it was humorous, him trying to cover up his wonderful accent. anyways, i do not consider myself the movie goddess as some critics of this movie and if you have nothing better to do than write pseudo-intellectual movie commentaries about films you hate online, i feel sorry for you. why don't you write about movies you like, like me. i just love how everything ties together, it keeps you guessing, even though you guess wrong. the ending was interesting, and not overdone. it was purely clever. i would not compare it to the matrix, because i think people then get the wrong idea. i went into this movie expecting nothing except jude law and a sci-fi. i was blown away. i have no clue about any other of cronenburg's films, but love this on its own merit. another clever thing was the foreshadowing with the dog. definitely watch this movie.


I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly, Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena one step beyond.

In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned above then by all means go out and get this one.


The movie eXistenZ is about a futuristic video game on a "pod" system that is almost like virtual reality. The only copy of the video game is damaged when an assassination attempt is made on the designer (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Unless it can be repaired, the many years and 38 million dollars spent on the development will all go to waste. The only way to repair the game however, is to actually go in the game with the only person she feels she can trust(Jude Law). This movie was pretty good, but doesn't really pick up until very late in the film. The best thing about this film were the twists toward the end. Definitely worth seeing. 7/10


David Cronenberg movies are easily identifiable, or at least elements within the movie stand out as his trademarks. Fetishism, the blurring between the organic and inorganic, squishy throbbing things that shouldn't be squishy and throbbing. "eXistenZ" is classic Cronenberg. Briefly, it's about a future generation of computer games, but instead of a video monitor, visuals are supplied by your mind. The game plugs directly into a 'bio port' in the base of your spine and while the game is running, the player can't tell reality from game. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the game's developer, guiding a novitiate marketeer, Jude Law, through the game's paces. While in the game they uncover strange goings-on and possible crimes. But are they real, or is it the game? Not even the game's author knows.

The movie is quite a treat, keeping the viewer engaged, but in the dark until the final minutes. Another thing I like about "eXistenZ" is that it doesn't use a heavy reliance on special effects, it's the story itself that propels the movie. Recommended for the Saturday night when science fiction is called for.


I have seen this movie twice and it's theme is an invigorating one. I have been into computers for many years now and this movie inspired me in a technologically sense as does a fresh love which stoked the furnace of my poetic passion in the heat of infatuation. Very original idea,great allurement in the way it holds you as it tells it's story to minds that need a release from the every day realities of this life.


This was a movie I came across by accident. I was flipping through and saw it was on Showtime so I watched it. Now i watch it at least once a month. This is a movie that is filled with symbols that might cause some people to trash it. Don't listen to people that hate this movie, if they want an action movie with expensive f/x they should have rented a movie that promises them. If you are in the mood for a good sci-fi, i highly recommend. If purchasing on DVD I recommend the Alliance Atlantic edition of the film, it contains many more extras than the Dimension Films edition.


Fair and nifty little science fiction/horror fantasy thriller about a well-known video game designer, Allegra Geller (Jennifer Jason Leigh) whose latest game - "eXistenZ" not only draws the attention of people who volunteer to try the game, but one who nearly kills her (and her game, too). Since she forced to stay out of sight, Allegra is stuck with Ted Pikul (Jude Law), a marketing trainee ("P.R. nerd") to be her bodyguard even though he only has a gun that's made out of flesh and bone and the bullets are teeth. Director David Cronenberg has, well, used some bits from his earlier films ("Videodrome", "Scanners", "The Fly", etc.) and placed it into certain parts of the story with some good timing. Law and Leigh are fine here and so are some of the supporting cast (Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Sarah Polley, Christopher Eccelston, and so on) that has an international twist to it. Dafoe is anything but devilish as Gas, a deceiving garage mechanic. One of the movie's best scenes is witnessing Ted eat (fish and frogs) and construct a gun and admit to Allegra - " I can't help myself." "eXistenZ" manages to show that he (Cronenberg) is up to his old tricks and it still works like a charm.


This is actually the first movie I ever saw in a theatre , where the people didn't leave immediately when the end credits started. In stead they remained seated for a few minutes , gaping with their mouths open staring in the infinite , trying to understand what they 've just seen.

The only thing I can say: Try to go watch this movie with as little knowledge about it as possible (so did I)!. I gave it a 10


River's edge is not a PLEASANT film to watch but it is an incredible one. Having viewed it many years ago I truly think it would still have the ability to shock were it to be re released or remade or something. Perhaps no movie ever made has captured the essense of young suburban inertia like this distrubing frightening movie. Given that this is based on a true story it is even more disturbing. Very well acted and just UNPLEASANT at many times to watch but also a little known masterpiece and a truely important film. Should be a mandatory to watch shown nationwide in all highschools. Fantastic.


One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it.

Disturbing but incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles, is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne (Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best performance in the film.

I saw "River's Edge" for the first time a long time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive time.

Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr. Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of his students seem to care.

I will never forget this film, not as long as I live. It's too saddening for that.

10/10


This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.

Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!


I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.

It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character roles.

The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.

I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse.

This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end.


Less Than Zero could have been the 80s movie that reveals teenage apathy in its most extreme form had they actually stuck to the damn book. But, where they hadn't, this movie presents does the job, and leaves you with the creepiest feeling when its all over in ways not done until the late nineties with Larry Clark's movies 'Kids' and 'Bully.'

Societal outcast teens are faced with a rather curious dilemma (they don't treat it much like one) when their estranged friend (Daniel Roebuck) boasts to them that he killed a teenage girl near the river's edge in their suburban town. Keanu Reeves may be the only civilized character among the bunch, the only one willing to exhibit any sort of conscience, anyway, while the others either don't do anything about the girl's death or want to help their friend hide the body.

I don't know who is more sick in this film--Crispin Glover--who becomes nearly obsessed and quite paternal in trying to protect the friend and hide the crime by smuggling him out of the state. Dennis Hopper, an on-edge drug dealer (who clings to a female blowup doll) that befriends the teens (as a dealer, of course) and suddenly becomes involved in the events. Or, Josh Miller, who plays Reeve's little brother, Tim. He appears to be the most apathetic of them all, at least until his emotional breakdown at the end. It is definitely not peppy 80s teen fare, obviously. And certainly makes the point strikingly clear about the serious detachment these kids deal with (despite a bizarre series of events) thanks to many great performances all around (even Reeves proved some acting capability).

Help yourself to a comedy to recover if it rocks you too hard.


River's Edge is an excellent film and it's a shame that it hasn't made more of a mark for itself in cinematic history. There were a number of gritty films based around school kids made in the eighties, but of all the ones I've seen; this is certainly the most nihilistic and disturbing. The film takes a storyline that is disturbing in its own right and adds the theme of teenage slackers and their uncaring attitude about things, which takes the story onto another level. The film works because the central story is interesting and it's played out by complex characters. The film begins with a murder. We then follow the murderer, nicknamed John, as he goes back to school and tells all his friends about what he has done. Rather than give the expected reaction, most of them hardly react at all and the strongest reaction that the murderer gets comes from Layne; who makes it his number one priority to help John clear up the mess he's in and get him out of it. The other friends mull over the crime, and before long one of them goes to the police...

River's Edge features a host of great performances from its young cast. Keanu Reeves has a reputation for wooden acting, and for good reason; but he fits in very well to this early role and this performance is easily one of his best. Crispin Glover is the biggest standout as the slightly insane Layne. Glover always stands out in every film he's in, and while he does go over the top a little bit; he convinces well as the lead in this movie. Reeves and Glover receive good support from a talented young cast that includes Daniel Roebuck and Joshua john Miller, as well as the great Dennis Hopper in another wild role. The film features a very gritty picture which bodes well with its nihilistic tone. The central characters are all of the 'slacker/stoner' generation and the way that they genuinely don't seem to care about the murder of their friend is more shocking than the murder itself; and the point that the film tries to make about modern society is both strong and well defined. The film is also rather funny, owing to some of the characters' lines; but the humour is pitch black and clearly this film was never meant to be a comedy. Overall, this is an excellent and memorable film that is definitely worth seeing!


I have seen this movie a number of times and find it very compelling and sad. The lack of real emotion from most of the characters is very disturbing. They seem empty, hopeless. The story is based on a real event.

A teenage girl is murdered by her boyfriend for no obvious reason - apparently he just felt like it. Then he boasts about it to his friends and as they don't believe him he takes them to view the body - a number of times. No one reports the murder. There are two strong leads - Keanu Reeves and Crispen Glover - Crispen Glovers character is seriously annoying.

Keanu's character Matt appears to be the only one who has a sense of right and wrong. This is Keanu at his best - a flawless performance and very believable - anyone who thinks this man can't act should watch this movie. Matt's little brother is almost the most disturbing character in the movie. Only twelve and no compassion or love factor in his life. It is very sad to think there are kids out there like this. It really makes you grateful for what you have. 9/10.


I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X").

In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.

What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.

This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10.


I hope the writer, director, editor, and composer (and let's not forget producer) read this... because their work was truly incredible on this movie. Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with this movie. I am only a regular guy who has been a fan of this movie for about 12 years and have seen it about 8 times.

Every second of this movie is touching. Every scene is classic. The acting is real. The movie is honest. You can relate to these characters as people, not actors.

This tale follows three distinct killers at different stages in their lives. The story is carefully thought out and every sub-plot is intertwined and woven together, culminating in a message that leaves us pondering the values of right and wrong that each of us carries inside.

Crispen Glover, Daniel Roebuck, Dennis Hopper, and Joshua John Miller (as a 12 year old boy) give absolutely amazing, real performances. I've seen this movie about 8 or more times and I still get so absorbed in their performances that I forget I am watching a movie. It's that good. Great job everyone who worked on this. Great job.

The music is also wonderfully matched and haunting. With the chosen cast, the carefully timed editing and pacing, the mood and tone, and even the subject matter, the director made some of the best decisions for a movie I've ever seen.

This movie is real. It's honest. It's a true movie experience which I will never forget. You may not be into the subject matter but it is something you cannot ignore. Ultimately, it's about people being people... and everyone can relate to that. I recommend this movie to fans of drama, suspense, and horror above almost every other film.


After reading some of these reviews, it is apparent that some have missed the point. What is great about this film (here comes the point), what is incredible about this film, what is astonishing about this film is that there is no proselytizing. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. There is no preaching. Life goes on. It is a masterpiece in letting an audience think for its collective self. These are just kids doing what kids do - without consciousness. We all went to school with kids like these. We are being numbed by fiction-/movie-/tv-/news-based reality/invention.

Feck's (Dennis Hopper the great) girlfriend alone and his relationship with her is worth the price of renting this movie.

There have been few movies before or since that measure up to the intelligence of this film. AMEN.


I really don't have any complaints about this movie, except for the disturbing scenes with the body. I fell upon it while switching around the tv one night. The acting was actually amazing, I didn't expect it to be better than it appeared! I thought Keanu's(who looks the SAME since 1986, which is a very good thing hehe) acting was really *great*, and Crispin played his character perfectly! This movie is a hidden gem! Its a fresh awaking of reality to the '80s, compared to the other teen movies done by the brat pack(even though I do like those moives alot too). All in all, I give it thumbs up!


IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- "This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it." You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following:

(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.

(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.

(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.

Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.


I'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character. Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are normal, please stay away.


Apparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point?

The killer in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, "She was okay." The movie only seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed.

The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper.

Even though the fashion is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think River's Edge is as relevant today as ever.

My rating: 10/10


Pot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the "River's Edge", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend.

Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr. Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other quirky connections on your own.

You can read a lot into the movie, or not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude, and "toilet"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled.

******* River's Edge (8/27/86) Tim Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller


A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt.


Loosely based on actual events, "River's Edge" is a film, much in the style of David Lynch, about a group of teenagers who are aware of a murder committed by one of their friends, but no one does anything about it for a long time. With top notch acting by Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper, we are able to forgive the average acting by everyone else in the film.

The film begins with a young boy, Tim (Joshua John Miller), dropping a doll off of a bridge (murder #1). Tim then hears someone yelling, when he looks up he sees Samson (Daniel Roebuck) standing on the bank of the river with the dead naked body of his girlfriend behind him (murder #2). Samson eventually shows the body to his friends. All of which are horrified, not only because of the murder, but also because the victim, Jamie (Danyi Deats), was a friend of theirs. Despite all of this, no one goes to the police. You may think this is unrealistic, but this is what happened in the real story. If you are familiar with the story of "Alpha Dog" (2006) you will know that the same thing happened there as well. Through all of this, Layne (Crispin Glover) is working to keep Samson safe, although no one (including Samson) seems to care about keeping him out of harms way. As time goes on we learn that Feck (Dennis Hopper), a middle aged shut in who deals drugs to the local teenagers, has also killed a woman before (murder #3). From here things begin to close in on Samson and his friends and eventually everything is revealed, but not in the way you may be expecting.

In the film we learn of three murders, each one with a different reason, a different reaction, and a different effect on those involved. When Tim drops his younger sister's doll off of the bridge, we are never made aware of his motive. However, we do see the reaction of the younger sister. She cries and screams while her mother consoles her. Later, her older brother, Matt (Keanu Reeves), helps her put a cross in the yard in remembrance of her doll. The murder of Jamie horrifies everyone (except Samson who is apathetic to the whole situation, and when asked by Layne why he did it, Samson replies with, "She was talking sh*t."), but they do not sob or scream, the run away and go on with their lives trying to forget what had happened. In Feck's situation, he did not kill his girlfriend out of hate. We never really know why he killed her, but we see that Feck is not proud of what he had done. He even mentions that he is sorry, and that her loved her. From this we see the different ways we can be affected by death. In the film, it is easy for us to identify with the teenagers, because they do not know what they feel, or how they should feel about the death of their friend. In much the same way, we, the audience, do not know how to feel, because we do not know Jamie. We are obviously saddened by the death and realize that Samson should be arrested, but we don't feel strongly for Jamie as an individual.

There are several similarities between "River's Edge" and "Twin Peaks" (1990-1991), especially in the overall feel of the film. I wonder if Mark Frost and David Lynch were thinking of "River's Edge" when they were creating their series. After all, Tim Hunter did go on to direct three episodes of "Twin Peaks".

Crispin Glover's performance as the hyperactive, frantic Layne is an Oscar worthy performance. Always in a rush and always worried about keeping Samson from getting caught, Layne is an intense character that seems to be on speed. If you have seen Crispin Glover in any film, you know that he can deliver a line like no one else. It is always a treat to see him perform. The other great performance in "River's Edge" is by Dennis Hopper. His portrayal of Feck, the shut in drug dealer who has one leg and an inflatable sex doll he talks to named Elly, reminded me of a more toned down and more humorous version of Frank Booth, Hopper's character in David Lynch's film, "Blue Velvet" (1986).

River's Edge is great film and I believe it shows us how easy it is to be apathetic, when in reality we need to step up and speak out against the evils in the world.


I didn't expect much from this movie, it was just one of those movies I thought I'd just watch because it was on television. i certainly underestimated this movie.

It's about a guy who kills his girlfriend and brags to his friends. I was very happy with the acting, they had the characters played well. It was a particularly great scene when Feck(Dennis Hopper) and John(Daniel Roebuck) are talking to each other about why John killed Jamie. It's upsetting to hear how he explains that he wanted to feel control and thats why. But Feck had loved the girl he had killed. Feck felt remorse while John felt nothing, hell he was proud of what he'd done. It really makes you think about people. Keanu Reeves did a great job as Matt, and Ione Skye was good. It's weird to see her as a valedictorian in 'Say Anything' and her as Clarissa. Every actor did great at .....acting. It was real nice for a change. It was a great movie and I would definitely say I recommend it.


This film is so 1980's and that is what I like so much about it. It does an excellent job of conveying the feel of that odd decade. The reality that Russian nukes could wipe you out at any time. Reagan in the White House telling everybody that things were great, while more and more social programs were slashed. Young people dropped out, but not as far as their parents of the 1960's did. Young people still went to school, they just smoked so much dope that their sensetivities were all but dead. Nothing effected them, not even the death of one of their classmates at the hands of one of their friends. How weird is it to realize that the murder was wrong, but you are not sure why. Watching the characters deal with the crime is fascinating and telling of a very sick society. Glover is great, Keanu is great, Hopper is incredible. One of the most memorable movies I have ever seen.


I finally saw this on video, after years of hearing about it. It is by no means a perfect movie, but it is oddly hypnotic - one of those rare, special films that creates its own world.

***SPOILERS*** First, the bad stuff. The scenes in Burkewaite's class are excruciating. Even if the subject is Social Studies, this guy is WAY over the top. His speeches are so overwrought they are laughable. And no teachers I ever had would grill their students like that, and tell the ones who protest to "Shut up!". These scenes are brief, but they break the mood and pull the viewer out of the story. Next, how the heck does Layne just walk out of the police station near the end? Also, what happened to Samson's car after the first scene of him riding into town? He spends the rest of the film being chaffeured around by Layne or Feck. ***END SPOILERS***

 Ahhh, Feck...this guy is great. Dennis Hopper effortlessly steals the movie. "Check's in the mail", "I love company", "you're my friend" - every line is a classic. He gives Feck an internal logic that makes the story work. Incredibly, he actually makes the audience feel empathy for this guy, especially when Samson talks about his (Samson's) future.

 By contrast, Crispin Glover is hard to take sometimes. Yet the scenes of him driving around in the Beetle are perfect - kids with cars in high school always have something to do, and buds to do it with. Matt's low-key attitude makes a good foil for Layne - their friendship is believable. Glover's mannerisms are a little much, but he is consistent throughout. He drives the plot and exudes a sense of urgency that no one else does - just try to imagine this flick if Layne were as much of a zombie as Matt or Samson - snoozefest!

***SPOILERS*** What makes "River's Edge" unsettling is the fact that Samson is not really evil, in the usual sense. He is kind of a boring guy who got sick of being taken for granted - in other words, he is like thousands of other boring guys. After he kills Jamie, he starts to unravel, which creates some suspense as we wait to see when he will snap again. ***END SPOILERS***

Part of this movie's appeal is the way the action stays centered around the teens and their point of view. The parents are comic relief - Clarissa's mom, Tony's dad - or overwhelmed - Matt's mom. This underlines how the kids hang together for the attention no one else gives them. It keeps the story focused on the relationships within the clique, and emphasizes that the only adult they can relate to is Feck. "River's Edge" is a textbook on alienation. It conveys how awkward, mysterious, and disconcerting adolescence is like no other film.


Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.


River's Edge is an extremely disturbing film written by acclaimed American screen writer Neal Jimenez.It is based on an actual event which happened at a time when most of American youngsters were trying to make sense of their lives.This is one of the most outstanding films made by American director Tim Hunter.Much of film's attention is focused on a reckless murder committed by a feckless teenager.This unfortunate event sets in motion a whole range of questions about real motivations of youngsters in American society.Those who saw this film during its initial release must have had vivid memories of great actor Dennis Hopper in a confused role as a sympathetic social outcast. Matrix star Keanu Reeves also looks good as one of the teenagers before he reached star status.At a time when teen flicks are made without any kind of serious preparation,it is hoped that "River's Edge" cannot simply be ignored as just another silly teen flick.It had massive impact on people who lived during turbulent times of the past when being an inhabitant of a sleepy town was akin to not having being born.For today's generation with their heady overdoses of Internet props such as Facebook,Twitter and Orkut,River's Edge might appear to be outdated but its importance cannot be denied by any serious film admirer.


I have seen this movie three times. Going back to VCR's, in the 1980's, and again on The Encor channel last night (Feb.11, 2010). Based on a true story which I remember being in the news, during the early 1980's, I've decided that I find it too disturbing to watch ever again. Yet it's hard to look away from a car accident. The creepiest character is Joshua John Miller, who plays Keeanu Reeves little brother.

(The story this movie was based on can be found anywhere on the Internet -- just Google it. It's about Anthony Jacques Broussard who murdered Marcy Conrad in Milpitas, California, in 1981.) The characters portray Generation X pre-grunge, borderline sociopaths, with the exception of Keeanu Reeves, who grows a conscience.

Old hippies did a great job raising that generation.

For such a young kid, I thought Joshua Miller was excellent, as the serial killer in the making character. In actuality, he went to Yale, and has written screenplays as well as directed. His acting capabilities in this film were amazing. Just the way he treats his little sister by drowning her doll, and tearing up her dolls grave, gave me the shivers. It gave me nightmares. Even with whats happening in our world today, in 2010, it still is the most degenerate film I've seen to date.

The apathy, and dysfunction, of these families, is enough to make one puke. This thrill kill almost makes the Manson murders pale in comparison.

Crispon Glover got a little too much into character. He wound up on David Lettermen to discuss his role, and almost kicked the host in the head. Apparrently Glover had to seek psychiatric help after portraying his character.

Also, fight the good fight to the great Dennis Hopper. You're one of the best!


i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom "hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid".

Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.

Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie!

It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good "human interest" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.


Crispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that I didn't know of it earlier.


I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line "I poked her with a stick."

The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status.


i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on.


River's Edge is more than just the story of a murder. It's an indictment of the wave of apathy that has plagued pockets of youth for decades now. Our main characters are a group of what my high school would have referred to as "stoners". One of them just decided to strangle his girlfriend because she apparently had the nerve to "talk sh*t" to him. This dangerous young man played by Daniel Roebuck has an intensity that will startle you. He takes the other kids in the group out to show them his girlfriend's body, and strangely enough, nobody seems really freaked out about it. The balance of the film punctuates the desperate circumstances in which these people live, and how guilt is eventually able to worm its way inside even these apathetic kids.

River's Edge is certainly not condoning or championing the behavior of its characters. We clearly see the dangers presented by such unchecked apathy and having only the desire to get drunk or high. We are shown the dysfunctional home lives these kids have, and perhaps this is meant to explain their awful behavior. But could it only be unstable homes that lead to this type of destructive living? Crispin Glover is his usual whacked-out self. He drives around town in a state of complete paranoia after the murder. He tries to sympathize with why his friend had to commit the crime, but clearly he does not understand what could have made the young man do it. Dennis Hopper plays an older man these kids get their dope from. Though he is certainly a rebellious figure, he cannot relate to the apathy and rage of the younger generation. Witness his confused reaction as Roebuck describes how killing his girlfriend made him feel. As wild as Hopper's character is, even he knows this young man should not be walking the face of the earth.

What will you think of these kids? Well, there is really no way to like their characters. Some are less despicable than others, but you cannot help either hating or feeling sorry for them. Twenty years later, there is still an apathy alive and well in a great many young people out there. When do these kids get lost? What makes so many of them want to act anti-social? This film, and the questions it poses about teenagers will stick with you for a while. That's a fact.

8 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


"River's Edge" was one of the most disturbing films of 1986, and for a year that also saw "Blue Velvet", you know thats saying something. Viewed today its lost little of its power and remains much better than the overrated "Kids". The previews for "Kids" played it up to be an expose of the deterioration of the nation's youth. In reality, it was little more than an exploitation film based mostly around shock value. "River's Edge" was promoted as a teen exploitation flick but was in actuality much better. The only times it goes from being disturbing to distasteful is the constant image of the dead nude body. Outside of that, the film is thought-provoking and, for all its minor flaws, quite realistic.

Keanu Reeves, known for being a particularly wooden performer, gives his best performance as a burned-out teenager. Ione Skye is equally sympathetic and likable. Dennis Hopper (on the comeback trail with this, "Blue Velvet", and "Hoosiers") gives a great performance as the creepy yet pathetic hippie generation leftover. Crispin Glover, while always entertaining to watch, seems a bit out of place as the manic stoner and leader of the group. The best performance however is definitely Daniel Roebuck. As the murderer John, Roebuck is frighteningly emotionless. Its a shame he didn't become a bigger star as hes a much better actor than Reeves.

The film is overall fantastic and daring. Don't mistake this for another lame John Hughes clichéd high school flick such as "The Breakfast Club". This is a shocking piece of nihilism that resonates with the viewer. Fans of this movie are advised to check out a Canadian film from 1981 called "Out of the Blue", directed by Dennis Hopper. Its another shockingly bleak examination of the generation gap and, despite its obscurity, may have been an influence on "River's Edge". (7/10)


This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for "Gummo". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen.


This relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good fun, not great but entertaining.

Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam, when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although the ending was certainly a surprise.

Stanwyck is the best thing about this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable.

While ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one point Stanwyck says to Cortez, "My brains are in my feet, while yours are in...." That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70 years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the basic plot, with the original ending, in place.


This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.

In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.

Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.

FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.


One of the last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, "Ten Cents a Dance" stars Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl "Barbara" in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks quite "plain-jane" in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton. The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway thru, and is VERY similar to "The Bride Walks Out" from 1936, ALSO starring Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of the Hays code...


1931 also presented "an American tragedy", the original tale of "who will he take up with, poor girl or rich girl". this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical resemblance to bing Crosby of "the big broadcast" ('32), even a receding hairline and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel Barrymore!!!!


This is an account of events that have been covered in print several times, and I had read two books - 'A Voyage for Madmen' and 'The Strange Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst' before seeing the film in Sheffield just before Christmas. I must say, it exceeded all expectations in its telling of the 1968 Sunday Times Golden Globe yacht race. These men set out to do something that had never been done before with no support vessels, wooden boats, no satellite phones, no GPS, and just their wits and skill to get them round the globe in one piece. Not to mention the months of solitude, the thundering southern ocean, little sleep, and boats that were often literally falling apart around them.

This documentary is excellently put together in my opinion, tightly edited, well paced with superb narration. The archive footage and the interviews are fascinating and bring the story to life. Clare Crowhurst's interview footage is especially revealing and moving as she relates the events that led up to her husband, Donald Crowhurst's departure from Teignmouth, the doubts and fears in his mind and her reaction as subsequent events unfolded.

I was moved and had even shed a tear or two by the time the credits started rolling, and overheard other people expressing similar feelings.

The two books I mentioned above are useful for more detail and back-story which couldn't have been fitted into the 90 minutes and I would recommend those too.

This is ultimately a true story of human courage and human frailty. A must see for anyone interested in sailing, adventure, human endeavour and real-life heroes.


Deep Water examines the pressures and ambitions on an ordinary man in a compelling documentary. The testimony and archive footage are a fascinating insight to the late 1960's and a ground-breaking round the world yacht race. The personal conflicts of duty to family, self and reputation are played out in one of the most memorable and affecting films I have seen. I was not familiar with the history of this story and the drama was successfully and clearly directed. The story is mostly respectful to the participants with heroes and villains implied rather than ruthlessly exposed. Most of the interpretation is left open to the viewer allowing room to personally relate to the situations and characters. This movie is a bitter sweet experience with an entertaining mix of thoughtful suspense, joy and drama.


This is a gem. As a Film Four production - the anticipated quality was indeed delivered. Shot with great style that reminded me some Errol Morris films, well arranged and simply gripping. It's long yet horrifying to the point it's excruciating. We know something bad happened (one can guess by the lack of participation of a person in the interviews) but we are compelled to see it, a bit like a car accident in slow motion. The story spans most conceivable aspects and unlike some documentaries did not try and refrain from showing the grimmer sides of the stories, as also dealing with the guilt of the people Don left behind him, wondering why they didn't stop him in time. It took me a few hours to get out of the melancholy that gripped me after seeing this very-well made documentary.


I remember the events of this movie, the ill fated cruise of Donald Crowhurst in 1968, in the Golden Globe single handed around the world yacht race. I was a 13 year old, living in England. The previous year Francis Chichester (later Sir Francis; he was knighted for his exploits) had completed the first solo circumnavigation of the globe. I remember it mostly because we were given time off school to watch his return (on a grainy black and white TV!) and then his knighting by the Queen. It provoked a huge outpouring of patriotic fervor in the UK. It all seems so quaint now. Chichester became a national hero, but he had stopped half way, in Australia, to re-fit his yacht, so the next logical step for yachtsmen was to attempt the journey without stopping.

It's important to remember that this was a world pre-GPS, when communications on land were still pretty erratic, never mind in the middle of the ocean. Now with GPS receivers that fit on a key chain and calculate a position within a metre anywhere on earth, it's hard to recall a time when you could go to sea and quite literally, vanish. As Donald Crowhurst did.

A number of yachtsmen signed up (all men back then), including mystery man, Crowhurst. Essentially a weekend sailor, Crowhurst had not been a spectacular success in any previous enterprise, including careers in the British Army, the Air Force and as an electronics entrepreneur selling navigation aids. He wanted to do something big with his life, and he saw the five thousand pound first prize (well over $100,000 in today's money) and the ensuing publicity as a means of kick starting his business. He signed a deal with a sponsor that proved more watertight than his boat, and which meant failure would bankrupt him, and soon found himself a popular figure with journalists as he prepared for the race. Now the Brits always love the idea of the gutsy amateur taking on the 'pros'. (Think Eddie the Eagle losing endless Olympic ski jump competitions, and the amateur riders who regularly start the Grand National horse race.) The public queued up to see him set off, but his boat wasn't really ready, and even as he started (the last competitor to leave the UK) Crowhurst must have known he didn't seriously have a chance. But too much was riding on him to quit.

In the wonderful archive footage we see doubt written all over his poor wife's face. Left behind with their 4 children, she is interviewed movingly throughout the film, together with one of Crowhurst's sons. She was in a no-win situation. Had she attempted to stop him, she would have been considered a spoiler, but afterward she was riven with doubt, as to whether she could have saved his life by stopping him. Faced with the certain truth that his boat was leaking and would never make it through the southern oceans, and unable to turn around and face ridicule, bankruptcy and ignominy, Crowhurst devised a plan to cheat. Laid up offshore Argentina and Brazil, out of radio contact, he waited for the leaders to round Cape Horn and start back up the Atlantic, thinking he could sneak in at the end of the line and pretend he had sailed all the way around the globe. He elaborately falsified his logs, and made 16mm films and audio recordings to back up his plan. But as one after another the other competitors dropped out, he realized that in fact he would come in 2nd and his logs would be scrutinized. Unable to face certain detection, his journal suggests he lost his grip on reality and eventually committed suicide. His yacht was found. He never was.

This beautifully edited film also follows the journey of Bernard Moitessier, an experienced and enigmatic French sailor, who was in second place and certain of the fastest journey prize, when he abruptly left the race, unable to deal with the clamour and publicity he knew he would face, and sailed into the wide blue yonder, eventually pulling up some 10 months later in Tahiti. Having spent some seven years working at sea myself, (albeit on very different ships to these) I well understand the pull of the ocean. Standing on deck, seeing water in every direction to the horizon, knowing there's a couple of miles of water below you, nothing between you and oblivion but a thin metal hull, without easy access to TV or radio (even nowadays on most working ships, you feel pretty isolated), it's possible to truly escape from the responsibilities of everyday life for a while. There is some thoughtful analysis of what drives people to attempt this kind of very long, lonely journey and the effect it has on the human mind. Most people would think that attempting to raise 4 children is adventure enough, but much is made of the need for self discovery in the hardships at sea, the search for self.

I strongly suspect that Robin Knox Johnston, the ex navy guy who won the race (and many since) probably knew pretty well who he was before he set off, which was why he succeeded not just in winning the race but also retaining his sanity en route. Those who went searching for something profound within themselves, may not have entirely liked what they found.

The marvelous archive footage of Britain in the late 60s is almost reason enough to watch this, (did it really look quite that bad? I don't remember it looking quite so dowdy, but perhaps we blot out the worst aspects of the past?) but overall, it is an excellently well made and engrossing movie. Highly recommended.


I happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not saying a word to each other.

I never knew the tale of the the first solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story.

The story is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb.

I'm shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie, but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance.

It's a must see, whether you like documentaries or not.


Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.

It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.

The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.

By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.

Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.


"Ideas are dangerous." Comment by one interviewee.

DVD Rating: B+ / 4 out of 5 / 8 out of 10 / Worth the time.

A great story for adults / or teen boaters but not for children. None of the stupid violent crime stuff so often mistaken by Hollywood these days as "quality work." And, it can be used as a trainer film on what proper boating preparation is all about, or not about, prior to "sailing the seven seas." The movie starts out somewhat slowly to develop the story as most documentaries do, but as it draws the viewer into the saga, emotions begin to percolate in one's head! Emotions include anger, sadness, and disbelief. The era: late 1960's.

That solo sailing around the globe is dangerous is not surprising. What is surprising is all the twists that viewers wouldn't expect. Its not your average group of guys in a sailing race! Each boat was different as allowed by the race rules. Each solo sailor had different levels of ability as allowed by the race rules. There were well known sailors among them and a few not so well known. One was considered a mystery man as nobody seemed to have any knowledge of his ability at all. Each boat was allowed to depart at will so long as all were underway by a certain date. And this was, of course, prior to modern electronics that allow boaters to communicate with shore about vicious storms, etc.

Actual video and audio recordings are interspersed with interviews of family members and others involved. The mood of the interviewees is always somber despite the years that have passed.

The main character, Don, is the focus of attention & how his journey relates to those who he not only wanted to beat but, due to circumstances of his own creation, HAD to beat. He HAD to win. The story was about what that circumstance did to his life as he moved South West across the Atlantic Ocean over a years time alone on the water.

Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. The entire saga isn't fully understood w/o viewing the 'bonus' stuff.

In the end, once you've watched everything on the DVD, you will likely just shake your head and exclaim, 'wow.' And keep in mind, THAT is why the story has remained alive for the last 40 years.

SPOILER: Do NOT fail to view the "special features" section of the DVD once the film is finished. One sailor who was headed back to England after circumnavigating the globe decided on the fly that, no, he was going for another spin and the film records his spouse's opinions about that decision. The opposite story unfolds as another sailor wishes the race allowed two on board so he could take his wife along and their photos demonstrate a very warm union between them. The interview with an burley ex paratrooper who had actually ROWED a boat across the Atlantic with a friend prior to the solo sail race was incredibly funny as he described not even knowing how to sail and who thought the bad things happening to him were 'normal.' Too many people think that setting sail in the open sea can be an romantic adventure without mishap. Don't you be one!


This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.

I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.

Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.

Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.

Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.

The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.


Deep Water (2006) ****

"It is indifferent... it's there waiting for you to make one slip up." Those words (paraphrased) are perhaps the best sum up of the nature of the ocean I have ever heard muttered. Its furies are boundless, not least of which, her loneliness. Those words come from the mesmerizing and heartbreaking documentary Deep Water. It is the story of Donald Crowhurst, an amateur sailor who partook in the 1969 Sunday Times Race around the World. If you do not know his story, it may be best to stop reading now. Don't read this or any other information on Crowhurst or the race. Find the film and just watch it.

After the first solo circumnavigation of the ocean in 1967, adventurers and watchers of adventurers began seeking the next one-up. This time the journey would have to be done without making landfall or stopping along the way. Having fallen on hard times, Crowhurst saw the race as a great chance to get his family back on their feet. He had lived through financial hardships as a child, and wanted part in going back to such a life. So he set out to find sponsors, and soon did in Stanley Best and Rodney Hallworth. The two men spelled the potential cash cow, and granted Crowhurst a boat, on the condition that if he should pull out of the race he would be forced himself to pay the expenses. His boat however was in serious need of repairs, and he feared it would not be ready in time for the final departure day. He was informed however by his sponsor's that he simply must go  after all, they ponied up the dough and expected it back many a time over.

The details of the story are infamous: Crowhurst's boat began taking on water, and his progress slowed to a crawl. Faced with the decision of trying to round the horn of Africa (certain death in such a boat) or turn back (financial devastation and destitution), he searched for a third option. He chose to hide out, alone on his yacht, waiting for other competitors to round Cape Horn in South America. From there he would rejoin the race. He reported false positions, and record breaking speeds. Then he stopped all communication for fear that his position would be given away. He also had to painstakingly construct fake log books for each day of a journey he did not take. Eventually the loneliness, the guilt, and the realization that he would likely be caught weighed too heavy on Crowhurst. His final log entries make the musings of a Kurtz seem entirely sane. Only a few weeks from home, he turned his boat away from home, and is reported to have jumped overboard soon thereafter.

Crowhurst's odyssey is a fascinating one, and its ending is heartbreaking, but strikes of inevitability. Our dreams so often turn into fears, and the consequences of our actions often leave us so few options for a happy ending. It is a story of a descent into madness, teased on by the infinite abyss of the cruel seas. The filmmakers do a wonderful job in telling this story. It's put together with chilling audio and video recordings done by Crowhurst, and narrations of his ever-increasingly maddening log notes. The story starts slowly, and may distract some viewers, but the rewards of the story are entirely worthwhile as it progresses.

There are also inquiries into some of the other competitors, such as Frenchman Bernard Moitessier, who was on par to likely win the speed competition, only to pull out and begin a second trip around the world. Also in the film is Robin Knox-Johnston, who was the winner of the competition. He donated his prize money to the Crowhurst family.

To read briefly on the Crowhurst saga simply does not do justice. It's interesting of course, but a quick browse bypasses the raw emotions and oddness presented here. The final moments of Deep Water are genuinely heart breaking, hearing the thoughts of his widowed family, and the adoration and understanding of his friends. This is a fascinating story, and it is that which carries the documentary into such great channels.


If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him.

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.


Have you ever found yourself watching a film or documentary and having to hold yourself back from screaming things like "No! Don't do it!"? No? Well it's time you do. And undoubtedly DEEP WATER is the one to get you started.

The story is based on that of Donald Crowhurst and his entry into the first round-the-world yacht race to be undertaken by individuals in 1968. That word "individuals" is important, as the men who set off on this nearly suicidal escapade head out alone.

Most of the men are well-knowns in the sea-faring communities of England (where they launch from), but one of them is the "unknown dark horse," and his name was Donald Crowhurst. Struggling financially, Crowhurst enlists a backer who can take everything from him should he fail to at least attempt to make it through a large portion of the race. He could take his home, his property, everything.

Crowhurst now finds himself between a rock and ...well ...deep water: either attempt the race with an unproven ship and an unproven captain, or lose everything you own (which was significant since Crowhurst had a wife and several children). You'll note the term "unproven captain" in there, too. Not only was he unproven, he'd never been out on the open sea! Did I mention suicidal? Flicking between archival footage of the pre- and post-race, and those of Crowhurst's friends, family, and acquaintances of today, Deep Water is put together masterfully. Initially seen as a poor sap who got in over his head, the film gradually shows you the limited choices Crowhurst had after months and months out on the water. His ship leaks. Equipment breaks. Psyche stretched to the breaking point (and beyond). Crowhurst finds himself lost in an internal struggle with no successful way out. It is interesting, too, to see the psychological breaks that other racers have as they deal with their solitary confinement on-board their respective boats.

The wave-like emotions that you'll feel as you watch this astounding documentary may make you a bit ill (not unlike trying to get your sea-legs). And you'll probably be frustrated at the choices being made; perhaps just as frustrated as poor Mr. Crowhurst.

The ending is also amazing in that we get to see the actual ship that Crowhurst sailed, sitting deserted and rotting on a Caribbean beach ...not unlike other things that felt deserted and rotting toward the end of this poorly thought-out race.

Incredible.


Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.

That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.

While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.

On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.

This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.

Thurston Hunger 8/10


Filmmakers made a rather boring everyman's story look interesting and complex by focusing on his wife back at home. At the same time, we're exposed to a truly original, existential French loner.

The film is more than a documentary. Hardly ever do I feel that I've experienced something that's accidentally profound, which makes it all the more profound.

Film has visually interesting interior moments. Absolutely loved the journey the filmmakers took me on. (Quite a lot of Europeans in the credits). Hopefully, PBS will screen this so that it reaches a wider audience in the USA.


I recently read the story to see how these two match up, and if you can believe it, this film improves upon Balzac. The story is moved around, I think, to drive home the idea that Colonel Chabert is a man who has suffered much and yet he comes home, not a hero, but as an outcast.

As someone mentioned, I was initially confused if Chabert was akin to The Return of Martin Guerre. No. It is firmly established by Balzac that Chabert is the real deal. What's interesting, though, is not is he, isn't he, but how his wife, and society, treats him.

I think this is a timeless story of men who go off to fight for their country and when they come home time has left them behind. Chabert is a tragic figure made all the more poignant by the amazing Gerard Depardieu. I don't care that he's been in 1 million films, he's captivating.

Fanny Ardant has a horrible character to play. Once a prostitute, Rose has used her feminine wiles to climb the social ladder. Are her emotions true for Compte Ferraud? I think they are and perhaps couple that with her social standing at the time, and you start to feel some empathy for her.

Fabrice Lucini is slowly worming his way into my heart. He's exceptional here as Derville.

I think if you can get your hands on this gem of a film, you won't be sorry. French cinema at its finest.


First, let me confess that I have not read this particular Balzac novel, so maybe I am directing my cavils unfairly at director and editor. Still my experience with Balzac in other stories is that he writes as a realist, not an obscurantist. This is most certainly a film worth one's while, but one is left sorely puzzled at the end. Was the Colonel a fraud, used by the lawyer for his own ends (or for whose beyond himself); or was the Colonel not a fraud, but used as aforesaid by the lawyer; or did the lawyer truly try to serve the honest Colonel? The director and/or the editor appear to me to have deliberately obscured these questions, which doesn't seem like Balzac, the realist. At the same time the film does an excellent job of delineating the characters, if not their motives, and the cast and production is superb. That opening battlefield scene is bound to haunt one's dreams. Still, one wonders at the all too common penchant among contemporary film makers to favor ambiguity above all else. Weren't the problems and motives of all these characters complicated enough for Yves Angelo?


Colonel Chabert is one of the best adaptations from novel to screen I have seen in the movies. It combines the realism of French cinema with excellent characterisation, from Depardieu's lost Chabert to Fabrice Luchini's proud Lawyer to Fanny Ardant's complex widow. The movie has wonderful dimension, as you might expect from a top cinematographer such as Yves Angelo. The characters keep this movie in gear and although a bit slow in the beginning, picks up pace and is a fine movie by the time it reaches the finish.


This is an unfortunately unrecognized classic.

The look is superb, the design, costumes etc are flawless, the post battle scenes and the cavalry charge are both chilling and exciting.

The characters are vivid and really human. Ardent is right and Fabrice Luchini as the lawyer Derville steals the movie with his clever pedantic rodent-like performance, delighting in the ups and downs of others' misfortunes. Depardieu is good but perhaps too large a presence for this role.

Where the film really excels is the story and also its changes from Balzac's novella. Those changes are editorial in that Balzac has lots of discussion on society and this film breaths with characters. Nevertheless Yves Angelo has retained the key ingredient, not just the missing man trying to regain his place in society but every character has to find their place in society: the Comte Ferraud is trying to buy a peerage, his wife (Ardent) comes from a lowly birth and when she was married to Colonel Chabert they achieved their position in the turbulence of post-revolutionary France. Everyone has something to lose in terms of status and that makes for a good drama as their objectives are in conflict with each other.

It also feels very modern: money is critical to buy status to reach power, but someone can go down as quickly as they go up. Derville enjoys the strategy, he has seen the worst of people he says to Chabert when he takes the case. This speech's original place is at the end of the novella as Balzac sums up the human comedy with huge irony.


Most of other reactions by subscribers to this service were very apt, although that some found it slow or ambiguous puzzled me. Rather than ambiguous, it was complex and multi-layered in its meanings. One can see it as anti-war, because of the opening and closing scenes, and the folly of pretended grandeur, as how wonderful the cavalry men looked as they prepared for the great charge at Eylau, contrasted with its so horrible and disturbing conclusion, when we see the bloody uniforms, the boyish dead, etc--but chiefly, I see the film as about a moral man in an immoral society. At the end Chabert chooses retreat from the corrupt post-Napoleonic French world and opts for the simple pleasures provided by Derville (who himself is saved by his recognition of Chabert's basic decency and the morality of his choice of renunciation)--white bread, cheese, some wine and tobacco--over the riches he leaves to his wife, and her and society's dishonor. In her case, we can see the film as also feminist, in the position of women at that time, in which the only weapons Mme Chabert has are her charm, beauty, wiles and, ultimately, money.