Even if Voskhozhdeniye was your favorite film it would only be possible to watch it, at most, every ten years. Its just too emotionally strenuous.Widely regarded as Shepitko's finest film, THE ASCENT is the story of partisans operating in the Byelorussian forest in the dead of winter in German occupied Soviet Union.

While assaulting the audience with the sheer physicality of the wartime experience, particularly the privations of cold and snow, the actual struggle for survival against both nature and the fascists, there is always a subtle, barely inferred sub-text of moral judgment and the question about whether a man can be moral or immoral in one context but otherwise in another.

A partisan group hiding in the woods is attacked by a German patrol and loses their food supplies. Two men, Rybak, who knows the area, and Sotnikov, a Jewish schoolteacher, are assigned the task of going to a small village for food. They find the village burnt to the ground with nothing edible and nothing more than charred timbers and foundations in which in one cubby hole there's a children's mirror hidden. The overwhelming feeling is that whoever brings the brutality of war to a land and a people become truly cursed. I thought of the war that the Americans and British brought to Iraq and about how bringing the horrors of war to people is the act of a degenerate nation.

The two move on to a nearby larger village where they obtain, under duress, a lamb from the collaborator headman. The German's arrive and the two partisans escape under fire. Sotnikov is hit in his foot and holds off the German's as Rybak gets away with the lamb. Sotnikov becomes so desperate that prepared not to be taken alive he removes his boot in order to put a bullet into his head. Just then Rybak returns and drags Sotnikov out of the line of fire.

Rybak drags Sotnikov through the forest, bloody meter by meter all done in one long take. Each meter is an agony and yet he still pulls him through deep snow, up ridges, across depressions, over black bush stumps which crack as they snap under the weight of the men. There are several similarities to the cinematic vocabulary of Tarkowsky here - the long takes documenting a process, the effect of using repetition, and the resulting emotional stress which builds the longer the shot goes on. In the background, unnoticed because of the action, there hangs a question- did Rybak commit an immoral act by going back for Sotnikov? Whether under the moral standards of Marxist-Leninism or merely the common imperative of the survival of the group, wasn't his duty to get the food back to his starving band and leave Sotnikov to cover his escape? To sacrifice one man in order for the group to survive? Which leads to the question - Can a man who is immoral under one philosophical system be expected to be moral under a different moral system? The partisans come as if another curse of war to a farm house containing a woman with three small children. She is embittered by the scourge of war and barely hanging on with her three children. They are barely rested when more Germans show up. They make their way to leave and are directed to the loft to hide.

Sotnikov's cough gives them away. When a German pops his head in to have a look and no one responds he threatens to fire across the loft and Rybak's nerves break and they are captured. Now who has the moral responsibility here? Sotnikov for coughing or Rybek for cracking? The two partisans and the mother are trussed up and taken to a nearby town passing ominously under a wrought iron arch at the entrance. They find the headman and a small girl already in custody. They are interrogated by a turncoat Byelorussian played by Tarkowsky favorite Anatoli Solonitsyn. Sotnikov keeps his head during interrogation and torture and only asks what the interrogator's prewar profession was? He doesn't answer but from his ease standing behind a desk the likely answer was 'schoolteacher'.

Rybak on the other hand begs for his life and even offers to join the police. The previously unnoticed character defect, making a 'wrong' moral decision, the ambiguity (sentimentality) of which disguised it from judgment, now becomes obvious, unsettling and very ugly.

The five sit in a dark cell. They are all scheduled to die the next day. From here the elements of a Christian parable become stronger. Genuine Rembrandt lighting and compositions are used as other Old Master poses of Christ are represented. He decides he can save everyone if he takes on the guilt for everyone. He must be kept alive until morning so he can save everyone. He asks the mother for forgiveness and the headman knowing what is taking place doesn't feel such despair at dying uselessly as he did before.

Morning comes. The Germans don't care if Sotnikov takes on all of the sins of his companions or not. They will all be hung. They trudge up a steeply inclined street which is a virtual Via Dolorosa. A bench is taken up to the site of execution which is the gateway to the town. Five ropes hang from it. The bench only stands three, so Sotnikov stands on a tree stump which Rybak kicks out from under him. They all are hung.

As Rybak descend the road with the Germans, someone in the crowd calls him a Judas, an unnecessary allusion, Shepitko's only misstep. Rybak imagines several times being shot in the back trying to escape, dying an honorable death and tries, unsuccessfully, to hang himself in the shithouse, but leaves with the Germans as the beaten dog he is. However if Rybak was morally right to go back and save Sotnikov's life, is he wrong to try to save his own life?


I saw this film many years ago (along with another of Shepitko's films, Wings) as part of a Soviet film series at a local film archive. But none of Shepitko's films, as far as I can tell, have ever made it to video or DVD in the United States. Ascent is a great film by any standard, with stunning black and white photography, hypnotic direction, and actors so deep into their roles that you have no sense of them merely giving a performance. Although the period details of Russian resistance to (and collaboration with) German occupation are very telling, the story is timeless. Two Russian partisans are captured by the Germans, and the interrogation tests their integrity as well as their courage. I suspect the reason why it has not been released on DVD by the Russians (here comes the spoiler) is that the Jewish intellectual (and not the tough Russian peasant) is the partisan who resists both threats and temptation, goes serenely to his death, and sets an heroic example for the villagers.


This greatest movie gives us clue to the depth of our souls in most deadly moments of our lives. My heart is shrinking every time I saw the scene of hanging. I have no words any... You must see this brilliant picture.


The Ascent (1977)

Larisa Shepitko is a name very few are familiar with. Her bright career as a director only lasted a single decade, ended abruptly by a tragic car accident. Despite her short career, she however managed to create some of the best Soviet films of her time. Her last film, The Ascent, is widely regarded as one of the finest Soviet films of the 1970s. Nevertheless, her work remained in obscurity throughout the years that followed, usually only available on rare and poor copies on video. That has now changed thanks to the folks at Criterion. They've released two of Shepitko's best works through their Eclipse department - Wings, and her penultimate masterpiece The Ascent.

Set during the darkest days of WWII in snowy rural Russia, two partisans trudge their way across the land in search of food after their party is attacked by Nazi patrols. They're originally only to go to a nearby farm, but when they arrive they find it razed by the Germans. Not wanting to return empty handed, they continue on deeper into enemy territory. Along the way they must confront not only enemy soldiers, but the harsh conditions of the Russian plains, potential betrayal and their own souls.

The movie does not fall into simplistic plot devices or destinations. It addresses difficult questions with painful rationality. It never takes the easy road or gives us comforting answers. The second half of the film is filled with moral dilemmas. Shepitko shows us the intimate horrors of war through the internal conflict between fellow Russians - those who collaborated and those who fought back. While she does show the collaborators as the clear heels, she nevertheless also shows why many turned to such tactics - survival.

The film contains a number of religious references, particularly to the lead up to the crucifixion. This is a spiritual journey, into the hearts, souls, and minds of the two partisans and those they encounter. Shepitko and her cinematographer capture the journey in beautiful black and white photography. The camera moves in long shots, similar to the camera-work of another of Russia's greatest filmmakers, Andrei Tarkovsky. Shepitko, like many others, was clearly influenced by Tarkovsky's style, and the Ascent takes some of its rhythmic notes from Ivan's Childhood. It is a stunning film to look at, and does a fantastic job of capturing the cold and terrifying atmosphere of occupied Russia.

Shepitko's husband would pay homage to her great film a decade later. Elem Klimov made his own war masterpiece with one of the greatest films I've ever seen - Come and See. The story and themes of that film were clearly influenced by The Ascent. Though that film is also a fairly obscure one, it received far more attention that any of Shepitko's films. That however acted as a bridge to Shepitko, and has been one of the best helps to keeping her work alive.

The Ascent is a truly magnificent film, and rightly should be considered one of the best films of the 70s. It's stunning cinematography is inspiring; its mood is frighteningly authentic; and its lessons are unforgettable. It is, in any definition of the word, nothing less than a masterpiece. How unfortunate that Shepitko's career was cut short just as it was hitting its peak.


I agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.

There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the "basement" scene, the "ascent". All stand out like jewels in a necklace.

For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.

There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life.


Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.


If you have a chance, see this Russian(how should I call them: gems, masterpieces,hidden treasures?), war movies like this one, or The dawns here are quiet, or Proverka na dorogah... And , right after that, watch again the American war movies, or the international productions, those one with the allies and the Germans,etc. Or, even worse, watch the Italian war movies. Everything from the west will seem shallow, contrived, ridiculous, in comparison with the Russian movies. I am sooooo stunned by the quality of the aforementioned Russian war movies that I cannot find the words to praise enough their shattering superiority over Anglo-Saxon war movies.


It comes as no surprise that Larisa Shepitko was married to Elem Klimov, who would later direct the most harrowing war film ever made, 'Come and See (1985).' 'The Ascent (1977)'  Shepikto's final completed film before a premature death  is built in very much the same mould. Set during WWII, the film follows a pair of Soviet partisans who try to secure food for their starving army while evading the occupying German forces. The first forty minutes are agonisingly tense, as the two men drag themselves though the harsh, snow-covered landscape, the world around them completely sapped of life, warmth and colour (indeed, so monotonously drab is the scenery that it literally took me this long to realise that the film was shot in black-and-white).

Following the partisans' capture by German soldiers, the film becomes a cold meditation on loyalty and morality. Whereas Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) refuses to betray his army, even under extreme duress, the less resolute Ryback (Vladimir Gostyukhin) attempts to save himself. Is he wrong to do so? Ryback's betrayal is disheartening, but the film doesn't immediately condemn his actions are treacherous; instead, the viewer is forced to consider what their own response might be in such a situation. Shepitko pities Ryback as the Bible pities Judas. Both men betrayed their allies to the enemy, and were forced to watch them executed. However, whereas Judas committed suicide by hanging (at least according to Gospel of Matthew), Ryback finds even that option closed to him  in an excruciatingly taut climax, the belt around his neck becomes unfastened.

'The Ascent' draws its emotional power from Shepitko's astonishing pursuit of realism. I have no doubt that the two principal actors spent days on end clambering across the snow-covered earth on their hands and knees, and, indeed, so convincing is their misery that I actually developed a cold while watching the film (seriously, I did). Interestingly, the film interjects on this reality on several occasions, as Ryback imagines himself making a bid for freedom, and then being gunned down by his German captors. This device, though unusual, works well with its Biblical allegory; Ryback is facing a trial of his worthiness, and, faced with a new dilemma at every turn, he consistently chooses the selfish alternative, his own life the only deciding criteria. At film's end, he is still alive, but the nightmare of war and guilt persists.


Reading the comments I am struck by the obvious effect this wonderful film has on viewers. But, how can you watch this movie and not reflect that the artful dialog was a subtle and oh so daring rebuke to the authorities "in control" in what was then the USSR at that moment in history? It wasn't the souls only in the time and place of the action being revealed. The questions, superficially asked, are nakedly provocative when directed to the here and now. Who are the real "collaborators"? I marvel that the writer stayed out of prison. I read somewhere that great stress can be a catalyst for producing great art. This film is a masterpiece of misdirection, apparently pointing one way, while asking the audience to "look over my shoulder, at what I'm really talking about." What courage.


During World War II, two Byelorussian (Soviet Russian) soldiers try to avoid being captured by occupying Nazis, as they trudge through snowy terrain, searching for food and safety. If you happen not to like black-and-white "foreign" films, you may still enjoy "Voskhozhdeniye" (retiled in English "The Ascent"). Director Larisa Shepitko paces the film extraordinarily well, despite its being a largely introspective piece of work. Her untimely death, in a car accident, made this Ms. Shepitko's final film, unfortunately.

After the opening mission is declared, there doesn't seem to be much that could happen in the snowy woods, but Shepitko and a changing setting make it unexpectedly exciting. Leading players Vladimir Gostyukhin (as the spiritually wounded "Rybak") and Boris Plotnikov (as the physically wounded 'Sotnikov") successfully avoid being crushed by the ever increasing symbolism. Their allegorical performances, under Shepitko's sharp direction, provide a memorable and thought-provoking take on a familiar story.

******** Voskhozhdeniye (4/2/77) Larisa Shepitko ~ Vladimir Gostyukhin, Boris Plotnikov, Lyudmila Polyakova, Anatoli Solonitsyn


I missed the beginning of the film. I came in when the partisan's were in the farm house. I can truthfully say that it was horrifying. The moral ramifications are staggering.

My fear of pain and torture leave me unable to see myself other than cowardly. I see the Christ like ability that was depicted by the brave patriot, and I can only pray that I could or would have the moral turpitude to follow his example.

I see that a main theme of the film is to show the weakness/strength of the tortured, but what a dismal decision to have to be confronted with. All because the soul of man can be distorted in such a way that, pain and suffering being brought to bear on a fellow human being is in some way satisfying. Be it mental or physical.

I found the film very thought provoking.


THE ASCENT is a very worthwhile addition to recent re-releases from the Soviet Union. Director Larisa Shepitko's 1977 film examines the moral ramifications of allegiance and honor in German occupied Russia during The Second World War. On foot and in a blizzard, two members of a partisan Soviet group leave to locate supplies, and are captured by Nazi soldiers. The focus of the movie is on how each man handles or internalizes his moral alternatives. One chooses dignity and integrity, while the other opts for collaboration with the enemy. However, in the end, he cannot abide by his selfish decision. The film makes much use of slow, wide-angle pans which shift to extreme closeups, and highlight the spiritual quandary within the souls of each man. This is not a great film, but it does effectively portray an intense moral dilemma against the backdrop of a harsh and frigid Soviet wilderness.


Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.

The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as "Frogland" or "The Frogs Who Wanted a King." A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.

Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.

Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: "News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom." When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is "Let well enough alone."

Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made "Frogland," but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. "Frogland" could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke.


The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here!


Wladyslaw Starewicz was a Russian-born animator living in France who did incredible things using stop-motion. I've seen a couple of these films before and they feature his favorite subjects--insects, frogs and various animals. They are extremely realistic and lifelike and even today are amazing to watch--the quality is simply fantastic.

This one stars lots and lots of frogs. They appeal to their god, Jupiter, to give them a king. Why do they need a king, wonders Jupiter--their lives are perfectly fine now. So, to teach them a nasty lesson, he makes an Egret the king and one by one it starts eating its subjects! Then, the frogs once again appeal to Jupiter, who states the obvious moral that it's best to be happy with what you have!

While the animation quality is incredible, this is a very creepy film for kids. I would think this would terrify them both by how real the animals look as well as the story itself which is not for the faint of heart!


One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high "croakers" feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but "political timber." Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original "croaker" is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: "let well enough alone." This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding.


Excellent exercise on multiple plans:

- showing the not yet ended colonialism spirit in France

- more generally the boring mindset of superiority from all western people

- a renewal of the spy and thriller movies: OSS 117 is uncultured and stupid!

The good idea is that, in spite of all these messages, it is a funny film, plenty of jokes and gags, very light and sparkling.

Special mention to Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.

Definitely worth seeing. Wonder how it will be appreciated in US?

Seems to be a success in France, so probably a next version will come.


This is probably one of the best French movies I had seen in a very long time! This "pastiche" or parody of spy movies is very well made and is going to make you laugh from the beginning to the end. Some references to today's world are very subtle. The whole Maroccan context of the movie is to be understood in light of today's French culture/environment. That said, all the jokes and - seemingly - shocking remarks that could have been understood as such because of this context, are permitted and accepted because this is a parody.

I was told by my sisters who had already seen this movie that I should go too and assured me that I was going to have a great time, and indeed I had! If you liked the old 007 movies with Sean Connery and also like movies like Airplane or Hot Shots, you will be delighted. I just hope this movie is released on DVD in the US... Wait and see.


Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (à la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies!


Seems like M.Hazanavicius is back!The man behind "la classe américaine" comes back with a really fun and clever sequel to those old-fashioned OSS-117...Whereas directors tend to "over-actualize" sequels of old classics (remember the avengers,urk), Hazanavicius chose to work on a really cheap hero, OSS-117, a kind of low-budget french 007, and decides to do it in a old-school way...The photography, the body attitudes, the fights choreography and the FX, everything is like an homage to the way films were made back in the 50s.And it works, as the tone and jokes of the movie are really good! Jean Dujardin embodies perfectly this stupid-arrogant-macho-selfish french spy, lost in a country he understands only in terms of folklore and inferiority.Yes, that's it, just the way the occident uses to consider its colonies back then (and, oh no, I won't say it has anything to do with what happens nowadays in the very same area...ah ah)...He just looks like an unfrozen Lino Ventura, with something like 40 pounds less, which is perfect for the role.The other members of the cast fit perfectly as well, with all you can dream of Russian spies, Egyptian independantists and former Nazis.And of course, the women, as there has to be "femmes fatales" in any good spy-movies... The plot is good (maybe not brilliant but really good enough...), taking place between actual historical facts, and remembering us in a funny way how France (and the others) treated its colonies back in those days. It all starts in 1955 with a British spy disappearing while tracking a Russian cargo full of weapons in Suez.Then France sends his best friend, agent OSS-117, to discover what happened to both the shipment and the agent... The fact is that this agent is really as dumb as can be, and he slips through the story without even understanding it, solving it in a very clouseau-esquire way. I have to say I had a bad feeling about the movie, as the publicity made around it was quite frightening, and as french humor tends to be quite populist and flat (forget about les bronzés 3 or camping...) but I was really surprised, and in the good way! I highly recommend it, whether you want a good parody of Bond-esquire movies (much more fun than in D.E.B.S. for example, but less skirts) or you're a fan of that genuine and candid way of filming they had back in the 5Os. Yes, that's it clever and (really!) funny, you've got the point once again Mr Hazanavicius!


I just saw this film last night, and I have to say that I loved every minute. If taken in the spirit of a parody of Bond-esquire films, it's truly superior. The true comedy of the film is in its blatant disregard for political correctness. The misogyny, cultural insensitivity, and almost laughable macho-ism of the films of this genre are used for major comic effect. It also calls the illogic and formulaic elements to task, with Agent OSS 117 constantly learning difficult things insanely quick (such as Arabic and how to play a traditional instrument) while missing some pathetically obvious clues. Some of the lines from the film left me laughing for hours after the movie was finished...and I have to say I have learned some...interesting...French vocabulary that would probably have my Professors quite exasperated with me were I to use. All in all, I thought this film excellent. Intensely funny and the first film I've ever seen that truly parodies all aspects of the spy film.


I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival where it ended up as one of the audience favorites. This is a spoof on the french cottage industry of OSS 117 films of the 50's and 60's. The first OSS 117 film based on the novel by Jean Bruce was brought to the screen in 1956, long before the first James Bond film, staring Ivan Desny as Hubert Bonisseur De La Bath and six subsequent action adventure spy films were made up to 1970 with Luc Merenda, Frederick Stafford, Kerwin Matthews and John Gaven all taking turns as Oss 117. Jean Dujardin is in the title role in this comedic take on the series. As the film begins set in 1945 he has a french mustache and resembles Desny but as the film begins it's setting of 1955 he really looks like Sean Connery. Jean François Halim wrote this hilarious screenplay of a spy sent to Egypt to investigate the murder of a friend. It borrows on the silliness of Naked Gun, Get Smart and the Pink Panther and uses fresh humor on current events in a delightful combination that international audiences will enjoy and I am sure this will be the only the first of more to come of a revived OSS 117 reworked to comedy adventures. Michel Hazanavicius directs. I would give this a 7.5 and recommend it.


That's how I'd sum it up! There were other who said, Naked Gun meets James Bond. I think mine is more accurate, but I'm not neutral on that point ... ;o)

This movie is kind of a blast from the past. It reminds you of the old movies (from the '50s & '60s) and that's not only because it plays in that time period (1955 to be exact, with the Flashback exception), but it's the mood the movie is made in and it shows on screen! The main actor here (who is as I've been told very popular in his homeland France), is perfect in his role here. He's the spy with the number 117 attached to him. There is one character who sums him up in the movie, by asking a question, about if he's good or not ... you'll see when you watch the movie!

Very funny indeed this is and if you like your spies mixed with comedy with old school flair, but not taking itself or anything else for that matter seriously, than you need to watch this! :o)


As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Béjo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can.


Jean Dujardin gets Connery's mannerisms down pat: the adjusting the cuff links when entering a club as all the women turn to admire him, the nonchalant straightening and smoothing down of the tie, the swaggering, steely gait. It's uncanny, and you come to realise just how much of Bond in the Sixties was Connery's creation and not really Ian Fleming's character.

The cinematography is a nod to those early films, the movie takes off From Russia With Love and Thunderball mainly. The main joke is how chauvinistic the hero is, not just in terms of sexism but nationalism and colonialism, and how he puts noses out of joint when he is sent to Egypt.

It's not perfect - about 20 mins in it seems a one-joke movie and bits of it remind one of spoofs of the day, of which there were plenty. Morcecambe and Wise's The Intelligence Men had suspect-looking men in fez's following their heroes around too, and that's going back a bit. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau or Baron Cohen's Borat, Dujardin doesn't give his character that layer of realness or genuine pathos - he is too busy perfecting his Connery mannerisms. It doesn't do enough with the credits or a big song, and there's no funny or serious villain, like Mike Myers' Dr Evil or Ricardo Montalban's Naked Gun nemesis, for the hero to go up against.

But the scene where OSS117 wakes up in Cairo one morning had me laughing out loud in the three-quarters empty cinema, and the whole thing looks wonderful, plus you'll never get a chance to see Operation Kid Brother on the screen, and the women are ace crumpet, really hot. It's a Bond spoof without falling into the mad scientist/Ken Adam sets or funny gadgets routine. Throughly recommended.


OSS 117 was fun from start to finish.

It's difficult to define why one film touches or connects with you or not, and I won't try to analyze such perfect comedy, so politically incorrect that even academic papers should be dedicated to it :)!

Everything is old fashioned here, from women's clothes (sigh!), Mambo dance, the "hero singing"... ("Bambino" sounds like an Italian canzonetta sung in... arabic :)!).

Hubert is physically imposing, but dumb as hell. From all the 007s, he looks like Sean Connery, but is definitely more sympa because he's... silly, speaks his mind all the time, giggles, even has some homoerotic fantasies and there are rumours about him. In short, as an anti hero, he rocks :)! Sometimes he only raises his eyebrows or frowns, and that's all it takes to make you laugh.

Bérénice Bejo is the true queen of the film. Graceful, treacherous but with ideals. Aure Atika, to the contrary, is reduced to a femme fatale of sorts. It's surprising to see her that "sexy bomb", thou.

You just can't compare it with "Austin Powers"! I agree with Amazon's D. Hartley (Seattle, WA) on it being respectful to the genre.

Which is your favourite scene? One of my favourite scenes is the "fight of the chickens" with the masked villain. But the truly perfect one is when chatting at the cocktail with his contacts, how they all mutter platitudes with confidence... This scene alone makes the comedy genre worthwhile.


I loved this film and recommend it to anyone who like a good spy spoof and who thought Johnny English was an embarrassment. This is the film JE should have been. But it's based on an old French films series so it's not really Bond related.

The production is brilliant, you'll almost believe the film was shot back in the 60's. It even has that same pastel kind of colouring films had in those days. Jean Dujardin plays his part with just the right amount of dumbness and naivety, not with ham fisted pantomime silliness like Rowan Atkinson And even if you don't like the film, you will want to see it for Berenice Bejo. Ooh la la! She is the hotness ...


This is the latest entry in the long series of films with the French agent, O.S.S. 117 (the French answer to James Bond). The series was launched in the early 1950's, and spawned at least eight films (none of which was ever released in the U.S.). 'O.S.S.117:Cairo,Nest Of Spies' is a breezy little comedy that should not...repeat NOT, be taken too seriously. Our protagonist finds himself in the middle of a spy chase in Egypt (with Morroco doing stand in for Egypt) to find out about a long lost friend. What follows is the standard James Bond/Inspector Cloussou kind of antics. Although our man is something of an overt xenophobe,sexist,homophobe, it's treated as pure farce (as I said, don't take it too seriously). Although there is a bit of rough language & cartoon violence, it's basically okay for older kids (ages 12 & up). As previously stated in the subject line, just sit back,pass the popcorn & just enjoy.


Saw the move while in Paris in May 2006 ... I was debating between that and mission impossible...I am very glad I choose OSS 117 not only because it was funny but might as well watch a FRench movie while in France. I had a great time... would recommend it. It is important to have some understanding the French society of Today to really enjoy the humor of this movie ... cannot wait for the DVD to come out... I don't know how some of the 'jeu De mots' 'puns' would be translated in English I 'll certainly buy it when it is out! P.S. I saw on 'BRice de Nice' which is a movie starring Dujardin that all kids were talking about in France. this movie is a comedy but sillier than one can imagine...in comparing both movies I have to say that Dujardin did a good job in OSS 117.


The two new OSS 117 movies has a kind of humor which is both intelligent and dumbed-down at the same time, which I find extremely amusing. It really reminds me of the classic Pink Panther movies with an almost as good leading man as Peter Sellers in Jean Dujardin. And unlike Steve Martin completely ruining Clouseau, Dujardin is quite brilliant.

The comments regarding the movies' being anti-semitic, are obviously a case of a complete lack of humor and therefor understanding.

Whether you will enjoy or hate this movie really comes down to what kind of humor you have. I can't wait for the sequel!


Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one César and was nominated for four more.

Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.

All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.

OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid.


Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job.

Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.

Before the movie started, a trailer for "Get Smart" was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles.


It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!!


If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who captures perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it.


What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France


I must I was a little skeptical when I entered the cinema to watch OSS117 : french comedies tend to be so self-satisfied nowadays that only the most stupid ones score high at the national box-office. But I was surprised that though the humor does not always reach the level of the Monthy Pythons, the many references to the French's vision of the world in the 1950, which OSS117 represents, are hilarious et the director managed to recreate film-making style of that time with an astonishing fidelity. To put it short, a bit of a good surprise, not to mention the excellent performances from various secondary actors. And at least for once, Jean Dujardin's style (which can get on many people's nerves) complies perfectly with the character he plays.


Admittedly, there are some scenes in this movie that seem a little unrealistic. The ravishing woman first panics and then, only a few minutes later, she starts kissing the young lad while the old guy is right next to her. But as the film goes along we learn that she is a little volatile girl (or slut) and that partly explains her behavior. The cinematography of this movie is well done. We get to see the elevator from almost every angle and perspective, and some of those images and scenes really raise the tension. Götz George plays his character well, a wannabe hot-shot getting old and being overpowered by young men like the Jaennicke character. Wolfgang Kieling who I admired in Hitchcock's THE TORN CURTAIN delivers a great performance that, although he doesn't say much, he is by far the best actor in this play. One critic complained about how unrealistic the film was and that in a real case of emergency nothing would really happen. But then again, how realistic are films such as Mission impossible or Phone Booth. Given the fact that we are talking about a movie here, and that in a movie you always have to deal with some scenes that aren't very likely to occur in real life, you can still enjoy this movie. It's a lot better than many things that I see on German TV these days and I think that the vintage 80's style added something to this film.


Psycho criminal pure by Carl Schenkel, who is active in Hollywood, like Mrs Soutendijk. Goetz George and Hannes Jaenicke are stealing the spectator's last peace of snugness. They are too able, how can I get calm into a lift next time ?


This was essentially a remake of "Diagnosis Murder" minus Victoria Rowell, Scott Baio & Charlie Schlatter. Dick is playing a college professor who teaches Criminology 101 and can't even find his own classroom. Barry is now a private eye, not related to Dick. This lets Barry shoot at guys speeding away from him, which a cop can not do. Barry still gets the girl in the end. Tracey Needham portrays the girl. She is the prime suspect and Dick and Barry believe she's innocent and prove it. That's all the spoiler you get. The ending is sufficiently unexpected that you don't already know it half way through the movie.

Don't take it seriously. Don't critique it. Just sit back and enjoy Dick and Barry Van Dyke.


If you enjoyed the TV Series, Diagnosis Murder, you'll love Murder 101. It's great to see Dick Van Dyke in a murder mystery again. If we're lucky, this one will be a start of a TV series or at least series of movies.

This movie definitely had some great and notable actors filling the roles. But, it didn't feel like a "face" movie. It was really a story that drew you in making you forget about the fame of those on the screen.

I made a guess as to the ending and was so pleasantly surprised at the end that I had to watch it again! This is a must see for any mystery buff or Dick Van Dyke lover!


I have enjoyed both of the Van Dykes over the years and was glad to watch them again.

Just as cute and funny and easy to watch and enjoy.

Dick was good when he was younger but I enjoyed him more as he got older.

Son Berry has been a great one to follow in his fathers footsteps.

Together they make a great team and work well together.

I am disappointed that I have not found another Murder 101 listed anywhere.

I have seen both of the ones that have been shown. I am hoping for more as it is really an enjoyable duo to watch.

You can sure tell Berry follows in his dad footsteps, they talk alike and have the same mannerisms.

Would enjoy anything they do separately.

Will be sure to watch anything they do alone and together.


The 2005 edition of the Royal Rumble came live from the Save Mart Centre in Fresno, California. The two top Championships of the WWE were being defended, The Undertaker was battling Heidenreich in a Casket match, Shawn Michaels was taking on Edge in a grudge match that had been building up since last October and of course the every man for himself over the top rope Royal Rumble match itself. Who was going to take the price this year? Chris Benoit? Edge? Eddie Guerrero? Edge? John Cena? Batista? Edge? Shawn Michaels? There was no shortage of contenders.

It was Batista that picked up the popular victory in the main event battle but not without controversy, or should I say, a botched finish. Batista and John Cena were the final two men in the ring. Batista was supposed to dump the young Smackdown! star over the top rope but it all went wrong and they both went toppling to the floor. The referees acted on their feet as we had an arm-raising contest similar to that of Bret hart and Lex Luger back in 1994. This brought out the chairman of the board. Vinnie Mac walked down to the ring the way only he can but injured himself badly getting into the ring. It was unusual to see Vince McMahon sitting, legs out, telling the two men to restart the match. Batista then did was he was supposed to do first time round and dumped Cena to the floor sealing his own future with a Championship match at WrestleMania 21.

The undercard for this years Royal Rumble had a very solid line up, with many of WWE's biggest stars competing in matches. Each brand had two big matches each.

Raw opened the night with the match between Shawn Michaels and Edge. This was a good technical contest. Back and fourth all the way until Edge got the pinfall. This was a smart booking decision and kept Edge as a contender to the World Heavyweight Championship.

The second match of the night was the feud ending Casket match between The Undertaker and Heidenreich. The match was not a classic, but then again have their been any classic Casket matches? It was entertaining. Especially when Snitsky got involved and then Kane popped out the casket to a great pop. The Undertaker surprised no one when he got the win, slamming the lid on Heidenreich and this mediocre feud.

The first of the two Championship matches of the night was John Bradshaw Layfields defence of the WWE Championship in a triple Threat match against both Kurt Angle and the Big Show. This match was very good. Again, not a classic but entertaining none the less. JBL took the win after pinning Kurt Angle. His celebration was short lived however when backstage teddy Long informed him at No Way Out he would defend the WWE Championship in a Barbed Wire Steel cage match against Big Show. Not a very nice way to spend a Sunday night.

And of course there is no show without Punch. Punch of course being reigning World Heavyweight Champion Triple H. His rematch from Unforgiven 2004 with Randy Orton was lot better than the original encounter. It's a pity because they just don't seem to click to well in the ring and this would be an excellent feud if they did. Orton played the concussion role very well and went down in defeat to The Game.

So the first big one of 2005 was a good one. It achieved its goals. Feuds ended and new ones began. We were now officially on the road to WrestleMania 21.


A respectable royal rumble event

1. Edge Vs Shawn Michaels

7.5/10 A very strong opener...edge's heel performance was sublime as it was during the rumble event ..overall id say EDGES NIGHT....

2. Undertaker Vs Heidenreich CASKET MATCH

7/10 a lot of people hated this rivalry though i liked it, i thought heidenreich really played his character well. the match wasn't amazing in excitement that was until kane and snitcky get involved .it gets better as it goes on.

3. Kurt Angle Vs Big Show Vs JBL(WWE CHAMP) WWE TITLE MATCH

7.5/10 a surprisingly good match , as there was only 1 really exciting in ringer in it ..angle of course......very good title match ..good pace.. though a predictable end .but aren't all royal rumble title matches predictable.

4. Triple H (WORLD TITLE) Vs Randy Orton WORLD TITLE MATCH

6.5/10 actually not that good for the guys involved, went on too many dry patches, orton sold his concussion amazingly, ending though was some what of an anti climax.

5. ROYAL RUMBLE EVENT... btw during the other matches there were a few segments...two which were really cool ...cena rapping on Christian and guerrero stealing flairs number 30 entry ticket. the event was good 7/10 would have got a 9 if cena won but unfortunately my biggest enemy batista wins(THOUGH I UNDERSTooD WHY) ..vince comes down and takes a drop and the whole arena crack up in laughter.


Shawn Michaels vs. Edge-8- Kind of hard to believe Shawn Michaels is in the opening match but still a great match by both men, Edge, whether you like or not is a great performer in the ring, and Shawn Michaels is just ageless when it comes to his performance The Undertaker vs. Heidenreich. Casket Match-2- OK, after a good opening match, now this, what a crappy match. Undertaker has given some great matches at the Royal Rumble, and 1998's Royal Rumble against Shawn Michaels was the same type of match, but this is way worse then that match.

Kurt Angle vs. Big Show vs. Bradshaw. Triple Threat WWE Championship-6- It's alright, i feel all three men could of given a better performance, this just really didn't show them at their best.

Randy Orton vs. Triple H. World Heavyweight Championship-9- Triple H gets a clean win, can you believe it, sure he takes out the Sledgehammer but doesn't use it. Randy Orton did great when acting like he got a concussion, but how he got the concussion is really ridiculous. I really liked this match, this was the best performance i've seen from HHH in forever.

The Royal Rumble Match-7- This was highly entertaining and i usually don't score the royal rumble match this high. The winner is again, very predictable, but just this had a lot of moments that were very entertaining to watch The segments with Flair and Guerrero are hilarious the best segments i've seen in a while.

Overall, this is a great PPV and a must own for wrestling fans.


The Royal Rumble has traditionally been one of my favourite events, and i've been a wrestling fan for a good few years now. The other shows may have better matches, but i've always found the actual rumble match to be full of excitement.

I'm not going to reveal the winners of any match as i don't see it as fair to ruin the results on a review. I will comment on the quality of them though.

We have the standard 4 matches, and then the big rumble event. Two from Smackdown and two from Raw.

Shawn Michaels and Edge open up for Raw. This proves to be a good match from two talented guys. This is a match i'd recommend watching. It's hard to sum up without giving away the winner.

Next we have the usual Undertaker against some big nasty monster, be whoever it is. Giant Gonzales, Yokozuna, Kamala... well this time it's Heidenreich. Its also a casket match. Typical Undertaker fare. Watch if you're a fan. I have to admit i am, purely for the entertainment factor. It can hardly be regarded as a classic wrestling match.

The next two matches are the title matches. For once Smackdown manages to upstage Raw. Their title match is pretty thrilling and enjoyable, but with a anti-climax and let down to end it. Raw's match is a pretty dull and boring affair, which is a pity as i'm a fan of both guys involved.

Now to the main reason i love the event, the rumble. It's a pretty good one this year. Coming up to the event we all had a pretty good idea of who might win, and it may not prove a big surprise, but hey, its very enjoyable. There are the usual diverse ways of people being eliminated. There is the token guy who doesn't make it to the ring, the entrant who is ridiculous and we all want to see vanquished, and someone gets eliminated by a previously eliminated combatant. It has its usual highs and lows, and i loved the ending, in particular the Vince McMahon entrance.

I'd recommend this show. Not the WWE on top form, but its still good. Add it to your collection.


This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.

HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.

Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10


Probably the best Royal Rumble in years.

Match 1 sees Edge battle Shawn Michaels in a good but very long match. Next up one of the worst wrestlers on the roster - Heidenreich takes on The Undertaker in a boring casket match. Match number 3 sees Bradshaw defend his WWE title against Big Show and Kurt Angle in a surprisingly good contest. The next match up sees Triple H defending his 10th heavyweight title reign against Randy Orton in a great match up.

Next up the Royal Rumble takes place in which 15 Raw superstars and 15 Smackdown! superstars hit the ring to try and win the rumble and face the champion whoever that may be at Wrestlemania 21. Highlights included Tough Enough 3 winner Daniel Puder getting his ass kicked by Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly! All of the superstars beating the crap out of Muhammad Hassan, and Raw superstars vs Smackdown! superstars!

Not a bad PPV at all.

Edge vs HBK - 8/10 Taker vs Heidenreich - 4/10 JBL vs Angle vs Big Show - 7.5/10 Triple H vs Orton - 8.5/10 The Royal Rumble match - 9/10


This year's Royal Rumble wasn't really bad, but last year's was definitely way better.

FIRST MATCH- SHAWN MICHAELS VS. EDGE Even though this match did take a little too long, it was still alright. Edge wins after using the ropes to pin Shawn Michaels. 4/10

SECOND MATCH- UNDERTAKER VS. HEIDENREICH IN A CASKET MATCH Now I don't really like Casket matches, this match was boring & sloppy but in the end it picked up it's pace as Undertaker nailed the Tombstone then rolled Heidenreich in the casket for the victory. 4/10

THIRD MATCH- JBL VS. KURT ANGLE VS. BIG SHOW IN A TRIPLE-THREAT MATCH FOR THE WWE WOMEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP Not a bad triple-threat match. Too bad JBL wins again to retain his title after nailing a Clothesline From Hell on Angle for the win. 5/10

FOURTH MATCH- RANDY ORTON VS. TRIPLE H FOR THE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP Great match by these two men, the match was a bit sloppy but it was still good & it picked up pretty towards the end. Even though Orton lost the match was fast paced & great towards the end. HHH nails the Pedigree on Orton for the win to retain his World Title. 5/10

FIFTH MATCH- ROYAL RUMBLE This was a cool Royal Rumble {Every Royal Rumble is good}. After all 30 men entered, the last four remaining superstars in the Rumble were Cena, Edge, Mysterio & Batista. Edge was able to spear Mysterio out, later Batista & Cena clotheslined Edge out together. It was now up to Cena & Batista. First after reversing an F-U, Batista went for the Batista Bomb but suddenly both men crumbled on the outside at the same time. After a controversial decision & Mr. McMahon making his way to the ring to settle the matter. The match was restarted again as Batista & Cena battled it out, but Batista got the better out of Cena, nailed a spine-buster & threw Cena out to win the 2005 Royal Rumble & go on to Wrestlemania 21 to face the Champion in the mainevent. 10/10 This was a very good Royal Rumble, but last year's would always top every Royal Rumble in history.

Overall: I'll give it 8/10 & B+


If you are looking for King Kong, you mispelled your search! This is a low-low budget movie that was soley >ment to entertain people in a comic sense. Here is the >most ordinary human who is the only 1 who can save the >world from a 185' 300 ton behmouth. Surely you can see the humor in that.


"The Spirit of St. Louis" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...

As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane "Spirit of St. Louis."

Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...

No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...

Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...

From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...

The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...

Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...

Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway...


I have watched this film several times over the years and always find it an entertaining experience. As a retired airline pilot, I am interested in most aviation movies and this is one of the better ones. I know that Lindbergh was only 25 years old at the time of his historic solo flight to Paris and that James Stewart was almost 50 when making this movie but I can overlook that fact because Stewart has always been one of my all-time favorite actors and does one of his usual outstanding performances as the "lone eagle".

There is a good mixture of comedy and drama throughout the film and a good use of flashbacks. It also helps that James Stewart was a pilot in real life both in the military and civilian life.


The word impossible has led many to select a particular view concerning any incredible task. In 1927, it was believed no man could fly the breath of the Atlantic Ocean. Many had tried but failed and some even gave their lives to the effort. Nevertheless, it had to be done as every challenge needs to be met with equal determination. Such then is the heart of this movie called "The Spirit of St. Louis." The actor chosen for this historic film is none other than America's own James Stewart who convincingly plays Charles Lindbergh. Although there are many facets of Lindbergh's life, the segment featured here is his efforts to be the First Man to fly across the Atlantic. The story is an interesting one and for Stewards' fans compelling to say the least. Seeking enough funds to build a special aircraft, to the fateful decision to began the journey on a gloomy day in May 1927, 'Luck Lindy' as he was christened, endured enormous risks, which are featured in this superb film. Other notables which helped make this film believable are Murray Hamilton who plays Bud Gurney, Bartlett Robinson as Ben Mahoney, Arthur Space and Charles Watts as O.W. Schultz. The sum total of this now famous movie is that despite poor endorsement on its debut, it has since become a Classic in it's own right. Well done! ****


Every year there's one can't-miss much-anticipated red-hot big-budget title with the right combination of star, director and subject matter that fails miserably at the box-office. This year it was Superman Returns. In 1982 it was Blade Runner. In 1957 it was Billy Wilder's The Spirit of St Louis, a film that had everything - top director, huge star, best-selling true story about an American hero - except enough of an audience to cover its costs. Maybe the public still remembered Lucky Lindy's anti-Semitism and his loud admiration for Nazi Germany's achievements before the war (neither covered in the film, which ends with his arrival in Paris before the legend got too tarnished). Maybe because they thought they knew the story or that it was just going to be one guy stuck in a cockpit for two hours. Certainly Wilder and co-writer Wendell Mayes are aware of the dramatic pitfalls of Lindbergh's relatively uneventful flight, alternating between a well-executed flashback structure to key points in his life and the build-up to the flight itself. Once the film is airborne, it's both surprising and suspenseful, finding genuine drama in his attempts to stay awake and to navigate without proper instruments.

It also builds up a quite remarkable sense of dread that's unlike anything else in Wilder's filmography, allied to a real sense of the epic: shots like the ominous storm clouds over the hanger the dark dawn before the flight carry a real chill of foreboding to them. Even the typically muted and problematic WarnerColor adds to the film rather than detracts from it. Along with the superb use of CinemaScope, there's a remarkable score from Franz Waxman: majestic, soaring but filled with understated menace, and cleverly used as part of the fabric of the film rather than mere musical accompaniment. The film does lose points for implying, though never actually saying outright, that this was a race to be the first to fly the Atlantic - in fact, Lindbergh was the third man to fly across the Atlantic after almost completely forgotten Brits Alcock and Brown's astonishing flight eight years earlier - but it's still a remarkably tense and engrossing adventure story that deserved the success it never found.


1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all.


A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a "feel good" movie.

See it. You won't be disappointed.


Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good.


This is a great story. Although there are some Jimmy Stewart cornball parts, for the most part it is a compelling tale about an individual with a compelling drive, vision and sense of adventure - to say the least. The bottom line is it is one of my favorites to watch and I've done so probably dozens to times -- that is until someone stole it our of a bag I brefly left on a plane on a flight to California!

Some have commented about too many flashbacks but I don't know a better way to keep a long flight interesting. For those of us who actually fly, flight can be hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. I wouldn't have wanted to see the flight shortened at all. The oppressive need for sleep and the drone and surrounding loneliness is part of the story.

There are many parts that I particularly like including the takeoff from Long Island and landing at night in Paris (Wow, things have really changed with us and the French since then!). The airplane building scenes and the record-breaking flight from San Diego are interesting as is the incident over the Atlantic in ice (which I understand is not completely true but did happen on the San Diego flight).

One gets the sense that one of Lindbergh's biggest assets are his enlightened supporters as well as his persistence.

Some of the lines that ring in my head now and then include "Pull the chocks!" on the takeoff scene and "I hope I don't have to use it that way" when describing the submarine-like "periscope" to the lady who lent him a mirror so he could better see his overhead instruments.

This movie is not for everybody but it certainly is for me. I hope they make it on DVD soon so I can replace my stolen version!


"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".

Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.

In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10


This film recreates Lindbergh's historic flight across the Atlantic while touching on episodes in his aviation career through flashbacks. Stewart was about 20 years too old to be playing the young flier, but his fine performance, particularly in the solo flight sequences, makes this a minor quibble. Waxman's rousing score is a big plus. Despite the long running time, Wilder manages to make it quite exciting and is able to sustain the drama even though the outcome is known. What a year 1957 was for Wilder: besides this, he also wrote and directed "Love in the Afternoon" and "Witness for the Prosecution." And his next two were "Some Like it Hot" and "The Apartment." What a run!


Biographical tale of the life of Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo non-stop across the Atlantic in 1927, aboard his plane the Spirit of St Louis.

While not amongst Director Billy Wilder's best films it does boast some very impressive production values especially for a film made 50 years ago. The story is well told and the performances are also good though not outstanding.

One definite limiting factor upon the storytelling is that Lindbergh flew alone and without a radio, which meant he has no one to speak with. This necessitated a few different story telling techniques such as internal monologues, speaking with a housefly, and the occasional bouts of talking to himself especially once the exhaustion sets in. Also in order to avoid an extended sequence of the famous flight, it is interspersed with flashbacks from his life and the methodical preparations for the flight.

Charles Lindbergh was a huge hero of his era but his controversial beliefs would taint his legacy somewhat. Despite this he would continue to contribute to the aviation field and assisted as a civilian aircraft consultant to the US effort in WWII.

Jimmy Stewart certainly had the flying background to back his portrayal of Lindbergh. He rose to the rank of Colonel in US Air Force during WWII and while in the reserves following the War would reach the rank of Brigadier General.


It's a thoroughly successful example of a 1950s biopic. It has the stalwart and handsome young hero -- well, not so young anymore on screen; superb, if unlikely, direction by Billy Wilder; a stirring fully orchestrated musical score of uplifting scales and, when required, heavenly strings by Franz Waxman; strong supporting players; a gripping story; stunning photography by Hitchcock favorite Robert Burks; and a narrative about a singular historical event.

The film begins with Jimmy Stewart as Charles Lindbergh trying to get some sleep in a Long Island hotel before his epic solo flight across the Atlantic, from New York to Paris. And he can't sleep.

The flight itself is filled with flashbacks to Lindbergh's personal history and the purchase and construction of his unique high-wing monoplane, The Spirit of St. Louis. St. Louis, Missouri, is the home of the partnership that sponsored the flight. (Even in 1927, money talked.) Anyway, the movie HAD to have multiple flashbacks and Stewart's narration. What's the alternative. Observing the unities? Thirty-three hours of watching Jimmy Stewart sitting silently at the controls of his noisy airplane while days and nights come and go? I found the script and the direction impressive for their time. Unpleasant things are of course left out, so as not to introduce more ambiguity than the contemporary audience might manage.

My bet is that the howling mob that surrounds Lindbergh at Le Bourget ripped the airplane to pieces for souvenirs. And of course nothing about the pilot's relief tube, though it would have added more opportunities for humor. Some of today's viewers will find some incidents corny if they think too much about them. Aloft, Stewart chats with a friendly hitch-hiking fly that, in its own quietly concerned way, wakes him up by landing on his cheek at a critical moment. Later, the St. Christopher's medal that Father Hussman gave him taps gently against the glass crystal of one of the instruments just as Stewart is desperately trying to land. The atheist Stewart is saved twice -- once by a fly and once by God.

But never mind that. It's an impressive film. That landing at Le Bourget, with an exhausted Stewart behind the joy stick, confused by searchlights, sweaty with fear and collapsing with fatigue, is really convincing. "I'm going to tear this airplane up," he tells himself, and we can believe him.

Flying a light plane is not at all like driving a car. There is no smoothly curving highway to tell you where to go, no lanes to provide guidance. You're busy every second. You must watch the instruments, check each wingtip to see that they touch the horizon, ditto the airplane's nose, and constantly watch up, down, and sideways for other traffic, although that last wouldn't have been much of a problem for Lindbergh. He was all alone over the ocean.

Why? In one of the movie's folksier moment, Stewart and Murray Hamilton, two gypsy barnstormers of the 1920s, are lounging near their airplanes in a Midwestern field. "What is it? What makes us love flying so much?", asks Hamilton. (No answer.) Later, his financial backers try to talk him out of the flight. Five other aviators have already died trying it. "But don't you understand? It HAS to be done," says an impassioned Stewart.

Well, that's not much of an answer either. Why does it have to be done now, and why by Lindbergh? Why NOT wait ten years and stop wasting lives in the meantime? The answer, dear Socrates, lies partly in our glands. Pilots are a placid and confident lot, given to occasional arousal jags. Their chief problem may be an addiction to an internal rush of adrenalin. Just kidding. Some of my best friends are pilots. Still, Lindbergh must have been quite a guy. He deserved to be treated as a hero. Not just because of the flight itself but because of his later demeanor -- quiet, modest, a family man. We can easily forget his admiration for Hitler, since he more than made up for it by testing Corsair fighters in the Pacific and advising the Navy on how to tweak the airplanes and get the best performance out of them.

See it if you have the chance. If nothing else, it's a history lesson told with visual splendor.


From director Billy Wilder (Double Indemnity, The Seven Year Itch, Some Like It Hot), I can see that this is a bit of an under-shown and underrated film, one to be seen. This is the biographical story of Charles Augustus 'Slim' Lindbergh (James Stewart), who in 1927 wanted to be the first man to cross travel solo flight from New York, crossing the Atlantic ocean, to reach Paris, in a small cockpit. The first half hour or whatever is seeing Lindbergh getting permission to do it, and the construction of the plane, named "The Spirit of St. Louis", and making all necessary preparations. Then of course the rest sees his perilous journey crossing the journey, overcoming tiredness, near fuel loss, and moments of losing sense of direction, but he was successful. Also starring Murray Hamilton as Bud Gurney, Patricia Smith as Mirror Girl, Bartlett Robinson as Benjamin Frank Mahoney, Robert Cornthwaite as Harry Knight, Sheila Bond as Model/Dancer, Marc Connelly as Father Hussman, Arthur Space as Donald Hall, Harlan Warde as Boedecker and Dabbs Greer as Goldsborough. Apparently Lindbergh was a bit younger, so Stewart was a shade too old to play him, but then again, you can't think of anyone else that could do better. It is a witty and emotional drama, with Stewart (as always) being fantastic, great music score by Frank Waxman, and good direction from Wilder, a good little known gem. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Special Effects (the only award it was ever nominated). James Stewart was number 12 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 13 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good!


What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me.

Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.

---Spoilers---

It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land.


Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927!


This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the "Spirit of St. Louis".


Others have harped here about James Stewart's age when playing Lindburg (he was 47 Linburg was twenty five.) But Stewart does not look his age and the film, for him was a dream come true. An actual pilot and a retired Air Force Reserve General at the end of his life, Stewart had the feel for the character and understanding of his passion, which other actors could not bring to the role. Added to the cast was co-star Murray Hamilton, who was also to be featured in "The F.B.I. story with Stewart) and such other well known character actors as Richard Deacon, of the later "Dick Van Dike Show" and Robert Cornthwaite of "The Thing from Another World" the 1951 Sci-Fi classic.

Billy Wilder captures the flavor of the Lindburg Autobiography and the telling of what was to become a major event in the history of aviation. This story and film are a testament to the soul of determination and perseverance to realize a dream. A box office failure at the time of it's release, it has since become one of the great classics of American Film and another in a long line of outstanding performances by an actor that has been called America's Everyman. No student of film history should miss seeing this one. There have been over 500,000 films since the beginning of motion pictures, and this one belongs among the top 500.


Stewart's age didn't bother me at all in this movie, although he was portraying a much younger person. I still recall my fascination with Lindbergh's story and while I was thoroughly adult by the time this biopic was made, I had to see it.

Not only does this boast a great performance by Stewart,it also gives a lot of fascinating technical data,making it understandable to those technically challenged such as myself. And the look of the plane itself was great.

I quite loved this depiction of a period before my birth and reawakens the childhood love I had for airplanes and for the idea of air travel.


Everyone knows that Lindburgh succeeded in the first transatlantic flight. So how can there be any suspense or intrigue in this film? Well, there is. Don't ask me how, but there is. Partly due to the director's expert telling of the tale but mostly due to Jimmy Stewart's thoroughly engaging performance, we are drawn into the story as if it were unfolding for the first time right before our eyes. Despite the fact that half the movie is filmed in a cramped cockpit, it is as dynamic as any action flick out there. So if you are apprehensive about seeing this movie because you think you know the story already, give it a shot. I think you'll be impressed.


Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching.

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.


Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.


I've seen Jimmy Stewart in all the regular roles, but the "Spirit of St. Louis" was reported to be one of his favorites. A poor box-office performer when released, this film has been largely forgotten today. Telling the well-known story of Lindberg's famous flight in 1927, Stewart seems to be badly miss-cast at first, and his well known voice never lets you forget who you're watching; it feels like George Baily all over again. But Stewart obviously worked hard on the role and he does everything right, so before long you don't care anymore that Stewart was 20 years older than the man he's portraying. Stewart's Lindberg is so gosh-darn, all-American, apple-pie likable that you get caught up in the story, and you realize that Stewart intended to portray Lindberg with all of the aw-shucks, Yankee-know-how he could muster up. Lindberg was an almost mythical hero in the U.S., and Stewart seems determined to keep up appearances.

Flash backs are cleverly used to keep what is really a rather dull story moving along, and I was struck by the subtle references to Faith that were scattered through the film; Lindberg trying to teach a hopeless priest how to fly, only to be confronted by the priest on his beliefs, or Lindberg refusing to carry a proffered St. Christopher medal to save weight on the plane, only to find the medal hidden in his lunch bag after he'd crossed the Atlantic. For me, this is a film not about a man's epic journey into the unknown, but his realization that this life is much bigger than the things we can see and feel.


In a genre by itself, this film has a limited audience and narrow appeal coupled with a subtle undertone which permeates the entire production. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable piece of cinema which is as timeless as a rare work of art. Capturing a time in Québec rarely seen in movies, Mon Oncle Antoine's strength lies in the depth of its characters and the richness of the settings. Duplessis' Québec, parochial and feudal, is brilliantly cast as the backdrop which could not possibly be achieved by anyone other than a pure laine Québecois.

It would be far too easy to resort to stereotypes, clichés and single-minded myopic statements in this story. Yet the director chose to skip the forced imagery and instead, focused on the essence of life in rural Québec of the time. That makes this film exceptional in its authenticity while not being pretentious in its presentation. If only more contemporary cinematic endeavors would do the same, the viewing public might not be forced to choose between the over-hyped Hollywood Pablum that passes for 'Must See' viewing.

Mon Oncle Antoine is - in every sense of the word - unforgettable. It will leave a lasting impression on anyone who has ever lived in - or visited - Québec. A classic. **********************************************

Follow-up: 10 May 2008

After reviewing some of the comments, it's worth noting Mon oncle Antoine is NOT - and probably wasn't MEANT to serve as standard Hollywood/American cinema for mass market sales. A coming of age story, yes, but far more than simple memoirs of adolescence in 1940's Québec. Viewers who're looking for sheer entertainment at the expense of complex development of the characters will be sorely disappointed. Go watch action/adventure/romance/comedies to be amused. Watch Mon oncle Antoine to be drawn into a seldom seen, but absolutely remarkable society that has been overlooked and ignored for far too long.

The Grapes of Wrath is hardly an edge-of-the-seat thriller, yet the story and characters are what makes this American classic an enduring film. Mon oncle Antoine is in the same genre.


Don't be fooled by the nostalgic aura that surrounds "Mon oncle Antoine," because like the best of Canadian films darkness lurks just below the surface.

Set presumably in 1940s rural Quebec, the story explores the developing consciousness of young Benoit as he learns to deal with both sexuality and death.

The look of the film is astonishing, especially seeing as a high proportion of criticism towards Canadian cinema by the general public surrounds aesthetics. Beyond this, the unassuming Benoit is a seductive protagonist for the audience, looking at his corrupting community with fresh an innocent eyes.

I recommend reading Jim Leach's critical essay on the film in Canada's Best Features for anyone looking to place the film into a historical context while also dissecting the form of the film. Definitely check this one out.


Mon Oncle Antoine observes the craggy face of a homespun community from various angles, slowly, taking its time through the beginning, as it should, until we emerge from shattered (but banal) hopes and expectations, into swirling ecstasies of dreams and a heart-stopping revelation about the terrible enigma of mortality.

Aimless pans and zooms across the snowy mountainside comfort the mind and hypnotize the viewer. This restless camera work is personified in a fringe character who is equally the drifter, quitting his job at the coal mine and leaving his family to cut lumber, then quitting again and returning to the stark humanity of his boy dead.

A fetching old woman cheats on her husband and a young boy dies. Old things become new and new things die. Throughout is the snowy whiteness, as wonder-stricken as the history of cinema.


I saw this film when it first came out and have never forgotten it. My Uncle Antoine is much, much greater than the sum of it's parts. The movie, loosely, is about a pre-adolescent who is sent to live with a relative in a small town in Canada. There are adventures that seem more or less typical but underneath there is a current building. MUA has a leisurely pace but have patience, the reward is coming. I believe the film was sub-titled and as with all non-English speaking movies I've seen it is well worth avoiding any dubbed version. Inevitably dubbed movies reflect the attitudes of a new director and actors, with the additional necessity of lip-synching lines that don't quite fit. The English speaking Amarcord is a travesty, for example, while the sub-titled version sings. My Uncle Antoine is well worth the time to find and watch it in French.


This isn't quite the best Canadian film ever, IMO. I won't get off track and name 3 or 4 better. Just a couple of nights before I'd seen "The Bicycle Thief", the highly rated Italian classic, and there are some parallels. Both filmmakers shot their film in a specific time and specific place, with minimal resources in terms of sets and cast. And the result in both cases is fascinating and a joy to watch for the realistic setting and characters alone. The lingering shots over faces and landscape almost make this worth watching on its own. That being said, this one isn't quite in the same league as the Italian classic. The movie is shot in a frigid, barren Quebec asbestos mining town. That frigidity is contrasted with the warmth of the people and the eye of the filmmaker Claude Jutra. Basically, what you get is a series of vignettes that are likely nostalgic recollections of Jutra - not ha, ha funny - but poignant, and probably sometimes difficult at the time, but now warmed over with the patine of nostalgia. The movie meanders; there is little tension. Somewhere around half to two thirds way through the story begins. Everyone you've met to this point is involved, and you've gotten to know these characters rather well; so have a little patience at the outset. The story is a good one; it will leave you thinking, and it involves sex, love and death, all the basic elements. If you like Bergman, Godard, Truffaut, all that kind of stuff, you won't be disappointed by this.


Everyone agrees about the technical excellence of this film by Jutra (whose life ended short so tragically). As for the content, of course it makes a difference if you're a Quebecker, and this explains some of the divergence of opinions. For me, it is to cinema what Vignault's "Mon pays, ce n'est pas un pays" is to song. In addition, Jean Duceppe was himself a part of legendary Quebec.

This film can be contrasted with "CRAZY", a current Quebec release that is successful enough to be showing here in Spain and is also about the 1960s. Urban Quebec (Crazy) vs. rural Quebec (Antoine). But also a film that must be something very different for foreigners and for people who know Quebec from the inside.