David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.

Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.

It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.

Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie.


Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird.

I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.

At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's "Blue Velvet." There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.

Like Lynch's "Twin Peaks" television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.

The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.

Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.

I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things.


With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.

The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.

Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his "love story in the city of dreams" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.

The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.

This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film.


Mullholland Drive proves once again that David Lynch is the Master of cinematic expression. At the screening last night I witnessed a brilliant addition to the history of cinema. The performances are astounding, the score entrancing, and the photography mesmerizing. David's ability to weave the many elements of film making into a unique and stunning cinematic experience is unequalled. As I watched Mullholland Drive I couldn't help but realize that with David Lynch in this world we are truly blessed. The cinema is blessed as well for, in the films of David Lynch, we are shown that one man's vision can be realized with stunning results. We realize that blockbusters are not the only path. We realize that a true cinematic artist has a chance in this world and in that we are blessed indeed.


There is a bunch of movies that we say must be seen twice. In most cases this is mainly a recommendation: you understand the movie anyway after the first viewing, and watching it for the second time helps you catch the plot twists you just did not notice. However, for Mulholland Dr. this is different. The sequence that worked for me was: see it first time - spend a day in Internet trying to figure out what this was all about - and then see it second time. Otherwise most likely you will not be able to enjoy this film to the full extent. Then you start to understand that this piece is ingenious, camera work is stunning, and the aftertaste follows you for weeks.

9/10


I've loved this movie since I was a little kid. I remember the night my mother brought this movie home for me. I loved it and I still do. I think it's very funny and original. There are also some very catchy tunes in this movie. Lou is also a surprisingly good singer. The actors that portray Prince Arthur and Princess Eloise are okay too, but Abbott and Costello are the best. Former heavyweight boxing sensation Buddy Baer, also brother of former heavyweight champion Max Baer is good in this movie as the cop and The giant. He's a better actor than boxer. He had a natural talent. The beginning of this movie is hilarious how Lou Costello keeps crashing the car and how he gets into trouble with Buddy Baer. The slapstick in the house is good too. I especially like the comedy in the Giant's castle. My favorite parts are; the part were Lou is climbing the beanstalk and they're all singing as a farewell. Jack is singing back to them that he'll return. Lou Costello is a very good at singing. My other favorite part is the part when Jack is fighting with the Giant. I like when Jack makes exploding eggs and when he tries to make the Giant an omelet they keep exploding. Abbott and Costello are hilarious and the greatest comedians of all time. This is only one of their great movies that I will love and cherish. The reviews for this movie aren't very good and I can't understand why. This is a very good Abbott and Costello movie. I also love how Lou Costello comes back to reality in the end and thinks he's back in the dream when Bud hits him. He starts singing his song and leaves with an attitude like no one is going to push me around. Very good movie.


Bud Abbott and Lou Costello always had a good following among children, but in their careers I think you could say that they only made one film that could be designated for kids. Jack and the Beanstalk was that one film.

It was part of a two picture independent deal from Warner Brothers, the second film being Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd. These were the only two films the boys made in color.

The two of them, out of work as usual, take a job for a very precocious and obnoxious young David Stollery as a babysitter. Although it starts out with Costello wanting to read the kid, Jack and the Beanstalk as a bedtime story, the young lad winds up reading it to Costello. Lou falls asleep and in his dreams he fantasizes he's indeed Jack the Giant Killer.

Buddy Baer who menaced the boys in Africa Screams plays the giant and he's got a giant size Dorothy Ford as his housekeeper. Dorothy was a big girl, 6'2", and you can imagine she had some difficulty being cast except when her height was used as a joke. One of the only players who ever looked down at her was John Wayne in Three Godfathers at 6'4". Henry Fonda and James Stewart in On Our Merry Way also stood barely above her, but again her height was part of a gag.

Shaye Cogan and James Alexander were the princess and prince of the fantasy and they sang beautifully, but couldn't act worth anything. This was the last film of William Farnum who's career dated from the early silent screen days and even to the turn of the last century on stage. He played princess Shaye's father the king.

Some not terribly memorable musical numbers came from Jack and the Beanstalk, save the title song. I well remember as a kid having the 78 record of Bud and Lou singing the song and reciting the story. I was in my early single digit years, but became a lifelong fan of their's through that and their television series.

Jack and the Beanstalk is still a good children's picture for the very young, though I would warn parents to warn their little urchins not to imitate young master Stollery.


Having read so much negative press on this movie over the years, I'd always avoided it, but the advent of the cheap public domain DVD encouraged me to finally give it a viewing.

Unfortunately, it's been transferred from a poor copy. The modern prequel, shot on tinted stock, is blurry and the contrast, non-existent. Faces are occasionally difficult to make out. Having said that, the actual story is entertaining and Lou comes across as an accomplished actor, more so than in many of the boys' movies.

Once the movie switches to the 'Jack' story, the film switches to 'colour' and I use that term loosely. Most hues are orange or brown. The greens look particularly bad.

Dorothy Ford as 'Polly', the giant's maid, was a big plus for me as I enjoyed her in an early 'Andy Hardy' appearance.

With so many negative comments put down to the actual quality of the print, I'm still happy to give this movie a 7. It gave me a lot of laughs and that's more than the greater majority of comedies I've watched over the decades can manage.

One to watch if you get the chance.


Abbott and Costello's talents shine in the happily childish version of "Jack and the Beanstalk". The use of sepia tone and colour, the music and choreography, song and dance, the crossing over of players from one role to another, plus various other aspects of this very fine movie make it obvious that techniques and styles used for "The Wizard of Oz" are being toyed with here. And that works right well for our intrepid duo. There are certain other things involved that make this movie a treat for me ... Buddy Baer's, Max Baer Jr. of "The Beverly Hillbillies" uncle, appearance as the cop and the giant. Pat Costello, Lou's brother, having been involved in the writing of the script. These things help make this film fun. It does, however, have it's down side. I do think that the choreography is poorly done. But the cute tunes and accompanying vocals help detract from the rather sloppy dance numbers. Some of the players, the couple in love ( prince and princess ) to be precise, aren't very good at their trade. But these things are a small price to pay for an otherwise throughly enjoyable walk down the yellow brick ... er, I mean ... climb up the beanstalk.


Although copies of this movie are hard to find, if you can find it, get it!! !!! I believe this was, aside from In The Navy, Abbott and Costello's only musical. Although they twisted the plot around a little, (I've never heard a version where the butcher goes up with him), you still enjoy the antics of the slightly idiotic but lovable Jack, and the greedy butcher, Mr. Dinklepuss. Slightly reminiscent of DuBarry Was a Lady, this uproarious film will have you rolling on the floor - only to get up and dance as Lou Costello sings. (I don't know why they didn't do that in other films.)


I wanted to see this movie because I am a very huge Abbott and Costello fan, and when I saw it, I liked it.

This movie is funny, not hysterical, but funny. I mean I laughed at a lot of the funny parts and I just plain enjoyed it.

Though it is not of the best of the Perfect Straight Man and the Perfect Buffoon, you should see this if you really love Abbott and Costello.

Out of all of the Abbott and Costello movies that I have seen, I can't say I've seen one that I hated. This is decent, funny, and entertaining. Abbott and Costello at least made some pretty decent movies in their later years.

All in all, I liked this movie, it is not one of their best ones, but I liked it.

7/10


So I guess that Bud and Lou just liked to mess with classic stories (although they did have some interesting results). In this case, they're baby-sitting a bad boy, and Lou tries to read him "Jack and the Beanstalk" but falls asleep and dreams that he's Jack and Bud's the butcher, and they climb the beanstalk to rescue the prince and princess from the giant (Buddy Baer).

I think that my favorite scene was when Lou was trying to make the giant an omelet, and...well, I'll let you see what happens. As this was an Abbott and Costello movie, they did have a few unnecessary songs, but other than that, it was pretty funny. For other interpretations of the classic story, "Bewitched" and "Gilligan's Island" both had episodes portraying it.


For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.

Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.

It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.

Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening!


The duo of Abbott and Costello lives on in this version of a story-time classic. In "Jack and the Beanstalk", there's everything to see, music, magic, and comedy rolled into one. Costello play plays Jack after he listens to the story being told by a young boy one time. We know Jack was a poor boy who sells his cow "Dolly" for 5 magic beans. Well, he plants those 5 beans, and they were indeed, magic. He climbs to the sky, sees a big castle there, and he would sing a song, unknown he would encounter the giant(Buddy Baer). Not only him, he would dance with the woman who was also a giant. She would clobber Jack with her elbows during the dance. That was funny! You got the playing harp who knows how to put the giant as ease. The goose who lays golden eggs. And my favorite, the way Jack gets rid of the giant. He gets the ax, and started chopping down on the beanstalk. Another funny is where the ax got stuck during the chop, and the final celebration happens when the people dance around the imprint where the giant fell. A lot of fun, and fun for the whole family as well. Very recommended! 5 stars!


I grew up with the Abbott and Costello movies, A. because my dad grew up with them and both our last names are abbott so we owe the deo a bit of respect, I didnt realize the flack this movie and others of theres gets. It was a really clasic due, it was funny cause abbott and costello were always the same characters, but it was sooo funny, now what i like about jack and the beanstalk is that even though the love story is totally boring and that one song the prince sings, omg , awefull, but i like the angle they took on the love, story, the couple has to get married cause one kingdom is running out of money, they meet in the jail cell and fall in love becaue they both pretend not to be royal and they end up being the couple, so happy ending, i dont think that was the orginal version, if it was they should have cut it out of this movie, but i think it was orginal and i love it. but watching it sucks, lol, also when the movie really kicks in with the giant + abbott and costello it is sooooo funny. when the giant is beating jack into the door and jack is screaming "OPEN THE DOOR, OPEN THE DOOR" that stuff is really funny. And that once joke where jack starts screaming prince, prince and all those dogs jump him. kinda cheezy but really orginal. i wish they would have al least tried to remaster it, though i got that africa screams\jack and the beanstalk, and i dont mind the quality cause when i had it on tape it was bad quality also so whatever i guess. the begining is mildly funny the middle is really really funny, and the end is not funny in the least, but i am 19 years old and when a movie made in 52 makes me laugh this hard, it rocks, this movie is really funny. i love their style. also the chapters suck. also the part where jack is climbing the beanstalk and they are all singing a song about what a dipstick jack is and that he will be killed, thats pretty funny


About 12 minutes into the song, in the scene where Daryl Hannah and JFK Jr are first embracing, there is a really pretty song playing...what is that song?! And, who is it sung by? It's a song that sounds very romantic and it is a female singer, piano playing, etc. I have tried everything in the world to look up the music on Google and on iTunes, etc., but it just doesn't come up, not even on Lyrics websites. So, if you hear it I would sure love to know enough about it so that I can try to either go get the CD with that song on it, or find it in iTunes. I don't know if my email will pulblish, I am new at this...but I will be looking back here.


with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John.


While I thought this was a good film about JFK Jr it was a little hard to follow the timeline. It jumped around quite a bit without ever mentioning what year they were in. Otherwise not great acting, and not really a great film, but it was nice to learn a little more about who JFK Jr was.


I liked the movie but it should have been longer. The actors did a great job. Portia De Rossi is a fabulous actress and Kristoffer Polaha is a hottie. He didn't look like John at 100% but he did favor him from a distance. I look forward to seeing more of him on the big screen. He didn't have john's charisma, but he definitely has a charm about himself. He has beautiful eyes and a great smile. He reminds me of my boyfriend alot. Ms. Bissett was just too breathy for me. She should have that asthma checked out. Im not going to comment on the Darryl Hannah character. My mom always said, "If ya can't say anything nice, then shut the hell up!" so that's what Im gonna do.

Molly


It is very hard to come up with new information about JFK Jr. and this fine movie had very little of it, but it was a joy to watch. The casting was very good and the script, while somewhat like a documentary, was also good. My only complaint was that it wasn't long enough. Perhaps a two-part movie could have told us more about his "pre-George" days and his relationships with his mother, sister, and other relatives. Some of the material in the book, "American Son," by Richard Blow would have enhanced the movie a lot. WTBS should be applauded for producing such an entertaining movie.


The accounts seem real with a human factor added to the mix. A lot of sadness. I'm sure glad that I wasn't him....another thing to add is that all the women in this show were not really pretty accounts of the real women. But, I don't think that it was about the women, although it was to JFK Jr's passion. What a shame. any loss of life is a real shame.

Seemed like a good account of his life. I recommend it if you are into biographies and melodrama!


Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy  a new genre for Breillat  we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male  female sexuality.


Catherine Brreillat is a French director who loves to provoke her audience. She takes us along to witness how a film is done on location. The movie in production seems to be based on herself, since the person at the center of the story is Jeanne, a woman director, much like Ms. Breillat. Jeanne acts as the alter ego of the real director.

Jeanne reaches an impasse at the start of filming. Not only has she picked the wrong time to photograph this movie during a cold spell, as it involves beach locations that are obviously too cold for the actors and extras. Jeanne has problems with the two principal actors, especially, the male lead who has problems accepting the way the director has decided to show him in the movie; the lead actress is no angel either.

Movie making, Ms. Breillat tells us is a process like no other in a creative work of art. First, there is the writing period, in which, in this case, Jeanne, has written a screen play, that when it goes into production reveals problems the writer/director didn't think about. There is the problem of how she wants to photograph a love scene in which the young woman of the story has her first sex contact. What appeared clever in the written page, doesn't necessarily translate into an easy time in front of the camera. The actor is made to wear a false penis and has a lot of problems accepting the fact that a make up has to touch him in ways he never thought he would ever be touched by another man.

The luminous Anne Parillaud is marvelous as Jeanne, the director. She makes observations about the production, the actors, and the crew that fit well into the story being told. Gregoire Colin and Roxane Mesquide play the lead actors, with all the insecurity that some actors bring to a movie set. Jeanne has to massage their egos in order to get what she wants in the end. Ashley Waninnger plays Leo, Jeanne's assistant.

"Sex Is Comedy" allows Ms. Breillet to give us her own take on films in general. This is a great look at the way movies are done in a typical Breillat style.


This film was very interesting to me, virtually a film within a film, which is about a very whimsical director who cleverly persuades an actress and and actor (who happen to dislike each other) in producing sexual chemistry on film. The director is faced with a fusillade of obstacles as she tries to get the two individuals to perform beautifully on film. Sex is Comedy is much more than a comedy, packed with uncomfortable quirky moments the movie also addresses the psychological and innate instinctual behavior of men and women in regards to the sometimes controversial act of sex. I loved this film, the character Jeanne played by the beautiful Anne Parillaud performs wonderfully on screen as you share in her struggle to produce a motion picture work of art.


I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light.


I wasn't surprised to read a comment by the director to the effect that she made this film as an antidote to all those "making of" DVD featurettes, as that certainly struck me. I do confess that I have a penchant for "meta," but I found this film to be very accessible and entertaining, and not even in a labored, self-consciously clever way, which is certainly a bit of what you expect in a film about film-making. It is very "French" in that there are a great deal of outlandish, yet occasionally compelling theories about how film-making (and even sexuality) "works," but since the director doesn't quite play herself (using an avatar instead), we're left with a lot of choices (since I'm pretty sure she's constantly contradicting herself). Apparently Catherine Breillat specializes in hard-to-watch films, but I'd definitely say this one doesn't qualify. I really enjoyed the dialog, the balance between the cinematic and the natural, the relationships between the director character and her assistant and actor, and so on. Highly recommended.


As being selected during the Quinzaine des réalisateurs, this year 2002, Catherine Breillat is masterfully halvedivided of her autobiographical film, there where her lead actress, Anne Parillaud (La Femme NIKITA, Luc Besson), embodies admirably the Film Director of "Intimate Scenes ".

This is a comedy of actors' manners. Making-Of ? Film genre ? Pornography or Exhibitionism? Sex Is Comedy is a post modern film, with its script based on a film within the film. As an implosive story of a minimalist love scene, the film is built with a constant solidarity of the forms and the spirit, in which, Breillat keeps on breaking and analyzing the taboos. Using visual codes and certain sense of the formula, Catherine Breillat implement her clinical analysis of the sexuality as an isolated problem outside the society to be communicate by the door of the heart.

Therefore, Grégoire Colin (Good Work, Nénette et Boni, Claire Denis, The Dreamlife of Angels, Eric Zonca) in the role of the Actor and Roxanne Mesquida (Fat girl, Catherine Breillat, Marie from the Bay of Angels, Manuel Prada), the Actress, are actors whom she invents, she does clarify in an interview. Breillat observes the man in front of him even, a chaste man. Then Breillat films the shame and the sexual mutilation, but also a big hope, a disturbing dimension of the ecstasy, a nudity of the feelings, the halving of the exhibitionism, playing to be one to be one. The Director is finally expected to lead the actors to give their feelings, their body and their soul. So arranged, facing the problem of the order of "who I am ", the actors of Breillat put on an inorganic vitality to merge in her work in progress. But, for what is a shape of incredible exorcism, for an actor, Breillat puts many questionings. Enduring at the same moment a big suffering, the actors appear to be the ones who look for this loving transport to be part of the eternity of their work.

The Art of Breillat is of researcher, to know how to undertake in a dialogue aiming at pushing away the limits of intimate scenes. Join make-up, prosthesis in erection and syndicates are not without reminding what pictures and scenes of Jan Steen's and Rembrandt could be in the anecdotal and the daily of characters on a shooting set. While the moral categories disappear from the background of Sex Is Comedy, Breillat succeeds in revealing the loving imitation power of the actors in a landscape of formidable and dramatic humanity.


Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature  the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.

The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.

There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it.


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


Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.

Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.


This movie is a fascinating drama about the Making of a movie. The Actor and the Actress really can't stand each other, but we build up to a scene in which they are to have sex - she for the first time, per script. The actress shows little emotion on or off camera in the plot, aside from she is freezing in the early scenes on a beach. The actor is self absorbed and increasingly defies the direction of the Director, Jeanne. I could not help being drawn in to the drama of 'how are these two possibly going to ACT their way thru a Sex Scene?' That drama in itself becomes more exciting than the actual nudity and foreplay performed for the cameras. Not that Roxane Mesquida isn't lovely and worth seeing naked! However, there is a pretty young stage hand who walks thru a few scenes as an extra. I think that is her in the far left edge of one of the pictures (2 of 9) here in IMDb. I don't even know if this girl is credited, but when she walks by (fully dressed of course) in confident indifference with her short blonde hair -- SHE is Sexy! WHO IS THIS GIRL???


Pretty darn good for a French film. I have not seen any of Catherine Breillat's previous films, and so have no opinions about this compared to her previous work. French cinema usually sticks to the ultimately arty films, and leaves the shoot-em-ups and star vehicles to Hollywood. That is probably a good business strategy, as no other nation's film industry will likely have the resources to compete on those sorts of projects. Films about film-making are often a bore, as it has little resonance for people not in the business. But this one held my interest much more than I thought it would. In spite of the title, (oddly in English) it really isn't much of a comedy, in spite of a few droll moments. I've only seen a few of Anne Parillaud's films, but she shows a generous amount of talent and range, from the action/psychological drama of "La Femme Nikita" to the wry comedy of "Innocent Blood". This film also extends her range as she plays a more or less ordinary woman, yet is still compelling on the screen. Kudos also to Roxane Mesquida, with whom I was unfamiliar. She plays a very inexpressive actress for most of the film, whose talent is drawn out at the end. If you don't HAVE to have car chases and explosions to be entertained, check this one out.


The opening of Imamura's masterpiece avoids mere sensationalism in its depiction of the unfathomably horrifying events of August 6th, 1945, in which 90% of Hiroshima and tens of thousands of lives were annihilated in an instant. Instead, Imamura emphasizes the unprecedented strangeness of the catastrophe, focusing on such portentous images as the diabolic mushroom cloud louring silently in the distance and the black rain that spatters a beautiful young woman's face. The rest of the film traces the ramifications of the latter incident, bringing the atomic holocaust and its aftermath (over 100,000 people died of radiation poisoning) down to the intelligible level of the plight of Yasuko (Yoshiko Tanaka) and her small "community bound by the bomb."

The survivors strive for normalcy and continuity, most notably by attempting to find a suitable marriage for Yasuko, but the imminent possibility of radiation sickness shadows every aspect of their lives. Yasuko's potential suitors, naturally enough, shy away from a young woman, no matter how attractive, who might suddenly grow sick and die. Genuine love, when it finally does appear, does so unexpectedly and ambiguously. We are left wondering if love across class lines is more a token of Yasuko's status as "damaged goods" or of a common humanity, thrown into bold relief by harsh circumstances, that transcends class divisions.

The film's classically restrained style intensifies the impact, the spare, eloquent interior shots reminding us that Imamura began his career as an assistant to the great Ozu. Imamura's mastery is evident, for example, in the paired scenes of Yasuko bathing, the first emphasizing her lovely back and legs, the second how her hair is falling out. The shots stand almost as bookends to the narrative's trajectory, distilling its tragic essence. The film's documentary-style realism is violated for expressive purposes several times, perhaps most notably in a scene that lays bare the troubled interior life of a shell-shocked veteran. Both the score by the renowned avant-garde composer Toru Takemitsu and the stunning black and white photography contribute greatly to the film's brooding atmosphere. When, in the final shot, Yasuko's uncle (Kazuo Kitamura), the film's laconic narrator, looks to the vacant sky for a rainbow as a sign of hope and regeneration, the black and white imagery suddenly becomes so poignant that it is almost unbearable. Few films from Japan (or anywhere else, for that matter) could be compared to the great, humanist Japanese masterpieces of the 1950s. This film is one of them. When I finished viewing it for the first time, I sat stunned, unable to move for at least five minutes, overwhelmed as I was by the emotions great tragedy should inspire: terror and pity.


It infuriates me no end that, now and forever, I will have to identify this movie (which I consider a masterpiece, and I don't use that word lightly) with the qualifier "Not the Michael Douglas movie!" Not only are the titles the same, but they refer to the same thing- the radioactive fallout that rained upon the survivors of the first nuclear bombings. In Imamura's film, this is no cheap metaphor; the whole movie is about the fallout, physical and emotional, from Hiroshima and the war itself. As the deterioration of a couple and their grown niece becomes more grimly clear, the ironic imagery becomes more potent, from the old clock that is reset each night to the stone gods that gradually pile up outside the heroine's door. (These, in turn, are carved by a shellshocked veteran who is compelled, in a series of tragicomic episodes, to attack anything with a motor that approaches the town.) The bombing day itself is shown in piecemeal flashbacks that are coolly horrifying. Yet "Black Rain" ("NtMDm!") can be watched, even repeatedly, because of Imamura's compassion for his characters. I repeat: a masterpiece.


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

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

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

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


After the atomic bomb hits Hiroshima, charred bodies lie all around, deformed victims attempt to communicate with relatives who can't even recognize them, and one person after another dies of radiation sickness. This black and white film, however sad and scary, is not without humor. The story revolves around a young woman Yasuko, who was hit by black rain after the explosion. She is trying to get married, but everyone keeps dying, and people are worried the same will happen to her. After finding a suitable mate (who is losing his mind after being in the war for too long), she ends up showing signs of radiation sickness. This film is a great portrayal of the atomic attacks on Japan, it will frighten you, and will perhaps make you cry. The acting is good, not overly dramatic like many other ww2 films that have been made.


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


Black Rain is a superb film, but watch out for the DVDs currently being sold for as much as $300 apiece. I have the DVD, and it's terrible. Very tiny non-anamorphic image that has to be blown up to resolution-killing size. Acceptable sound. This is a primitive DVD that absolutely *has* to be rereleased.

BTW, I also own the laserdisc and the VHS of Black Rain. The VHS is a huge step upward from the DVD! And the laserdisc has far and away the best picture of them allsubtitles in the black, sharp, big picture, simple but very good soundtrack. Buy the VHS and avoid the preposterous prices these scam artists are demanding!


I didn't really concentrate on the larger Genocidal aspects of the story (although the horrific images at the beginning are very powerful). I was really taken with the human story of the girl and her family. Imagine living your life not knowing if you have a time bomb ticking away inside you. I was really wrenching to see Yasuko being rejected as "tainted" by the bomb. The image that stays with me most is when Yasuko stands before the mirror combing her hair, silently watching it come out in clumps.


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

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

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

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


In the light of the recent typhoon that hit the country hard (that is, typhoon Ondoy), I thought it upon myself to re-watch "Black Rain" (1988, Japan), Shohei Imamura's haunting black-and-white masterpiece on the destruction and after-effects of the atomic bomb that hit Hiroshima in the closing period of the Second World War. The destruction and impact of both catastrophes (war and typhoon) may differ in degree and quality, but the trauma and scar (physically and psychologically) nevertheless are still there.

It is a testament to a film's power that its images remain as potent and as indelible as when they were first seen. It is only that the difference now, in my case, is that watching those images has assumed a greater sense of poignancy and potency due to a first-hand experience of a near-monumental weather calamity. There is a sense of kinship, so to speak.

Imamura has always been one of my favorite Japanese filmmakers. His films are always a pleasure to watch because of their anarchy, sensuality and earthiness:"The Pornographers:Introduction to Anthropology" (1966), "Eijanaika" (1981), "Warm Water Under a Red Bridge" (2001), his two Palme d'Or-winners "Ballad of Narayama" (1983) and "The Eel" (1997), to name some. Given the mood of his films, who would have thought that he once served as an assistant director to Yasujiro Ozu, Japanese cinema's most austere and minimalist filmmaker? But then, it is Ozu's rigorous formality and domesticity that Imamura was rebelling against.

But then again, with "Black Rain" one can unmistakably sense Ozu's imprints. The father (or the father-figure) being intent on seeing his daughter get married before time runs out on both of them, and the stillness and calmness of the scenes showing all members of the family together (notably, the dinner scenes or in Ozu's film lexicon, the tatami) are something that the revered master filmmaker would perennially explore in his works ("Tokyo Story", "Late Spring"). Essentially, the over-all subdued and deliberate quality of "Black Rain" is a remarkable contrast to the bacchanalian chaos and instinctual drive of Imamura's entire filmography.

Still, this is not to say that watching the film would not be an altogether unsettling experience. "Black Rain", as aptly described by American film reviewer Leonard Maltin, is "filled with haunting black-and-white images." In the film's first 15 minutes, Imamura pulls no punches in showing the immediate and graphic horrors of the nuclear bombing, one after another (stiffly-burnt bodies, hanging flesh, walking dead, fires and debris everywhere, madness all over). An assault to the viewers' senses, definitely it is, coupled with Takashi Kawamata's somber b/w photography (he did the lensing in Yoshitaru Nomura's crime drama "The Incident") and Toru Takemitsu's chilling score (he did the music in such classics as Akira Kurosawa's "Ran" and Masahiro Shinoda's "Double Suicide").

Even during the film's supposed "tranquil" phase (that is, five years after the atomic bombing), one can still never have a sense of contentment and order, with the uneasiness and pain still being strongly felt by the survivors, not only in terms of failing physical health, but more so in terms of psychological trauma and social stigma. The human race, it now indisputably appears, has been destined to bear the legacy of the Bomb, for as long as it lives.

I already wrote a piece about "Black Rain" some years earlier (posted in IMDb.com), but only in comparison to Volker Schlondorff's magnificent "Tin Drum", another film dealing with monumental human folly and global catastrophe. Moreover, it has never been my practice to write twice about a film that I already wrote something about before. It is in the light of the recent weather calamity that devastated our country that I was prompted to re-visit and write something again about this remarkable Imamura film, as there is a wealth of lessons to be learned from both the film and the recent event in regards the imperfections and dangers of scientific knowledge and action, and the long-term scars and wounds inflicted by a wide- scale destruction (whether human- or nature-induced).

There have been a number of films dealing with nuclear holocaust and destruction ("Testament", "Threads", "The War Game", each situated within their own respective countries);and "Black Rain" stands among them, if not more so, for both its unapologetic and somber portrayal of individual and communal disintegration brought about by atomic devastation and the fact that it has a historical event as its basis.

Few weeks from now, another disaster film from Hollywood, Roland Emmerich's "2012", will finally hit (no pun intended) the big screen. As we all know, this American director's bunch of "disaster/apocalypse" films--"Independence Day", "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow"-- serves no other purpose than to be of mere entertainment value, with no real insight into the nature and wisdom of apocalyptic disaster and the human condition being affected. I wonder how this "gigantic" movie would exploit the trauma, disorientation and apprehensions still being experienced by our people because of the recent weather calamity. To say that this flick is a precautionary tale would probably be no more than an overstatement.

But yes, I will still watch "2012".


Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.


Well, where to start? I stumbled across this one in 1993 and just hit "record" on the VCR out of habit, more than anything else. "Citizen Kane" it sure isn't...but if you've had a bad day and are in the mood for crashing out in front of something not too intellectually stimulating, then I tentatively suggest this might just be your "thing".

We have the lot here - great title track, more stereotypes than you could shake a stick at, unconscious comedy, the bitchiest fight scene of all time and more, more, more! David Hemmings plays the diametric opposite of his role in the 60s classic "Blow Up" - still a photographer, still hormonally stimulated but not "quite" the same.

John Philip Law is easy to slam as an actor who makes a log appear unwooden but that wouldn;t be fair seeing as how he had about 5 minutes notice before accepting the role.

Wexler as "Amanda"? Suffice to say it was her one and ONLY film role! The real star of this movie, though, is Ethel Evans who plays a, shall we say secretary (?), with the morals of an alley cat and an ambition to match. The way she manages to reconcile her present life with that of a future with her comedian husband-to-be is actually quite touching in an earthy, gritty, what-is-to-be-will-be way.

I actually love this movie when I'm in the mood for it.......and wouldn't touch it with the proverbial bargepole when I'm not.

Kudos to the cast for keeping a (relatively) straight face when filming.

A "classic" in the Edward D Wood school of cinematic endeavours!


Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!

The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song "He's Moving On" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect.


I have never read a Jacqueline Susann novel, but I have also seen Valley of the Dolls, based on another of her books. On both occasions I thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). The reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion, design and behavior patterns. And in this aspect The Love Machine offers quite a lot. The set design fits the story perfectly. And all the characters fit in, too. They're perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. They are superficial and do not develop, it is true, but in this movie I wouldn't want it any different.

David Hemmings reprises the role he played in Antonioni's Blow Up. And it's more than a rip-off. He's a fashion photographer, looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. Robert Ryan reprises the role he played in Max Ophül's Caught, he is Smith Ohlrig all over again, greedy, bored and boring, uninspired and uninspiring. It's possible Ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly, on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. Whatever happened, it fits the picture. Dyan Cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe!), she dominates every scene she's in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie: the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the Hemmings character with a Academy Award statuette.

The title, The Love Machine, is, of course, meant ironically. Robin Stone is a kind of a Barry Lyndon of the pop era (incidentally, the movie IS slightly kubrickysh). That he chooses a TV station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. He sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. There are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. Homosexuality is treated very casually, probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. The open cynicism of the TV executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like A Face in the Crowd or Network or Truman Show. They are producing crap, they agree among themselves it's crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it.

I did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following, provided it's given the chance (meaning a DVD release).


This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.

Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo.


I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney!


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

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


When it comes to political movies I usually come out feeling empty. They generally take up some moralistic stance and you have a clear good vs bad story line as if it is some sort of Batman movie.

But with Lumumba it is the first movie I've seen that showed politics for what it is, and the real issues of trying to rule a country of broken people who have known no other rule but violence. There were no good or bad there were just interests and conflicts of interest. This is the only political movie in my opinion that one can come out of it truly learning something. Especially for anyone with their eye on politics as a career this movie shows you, you cannot rule on what you want for a country, but what the country wants from you.

That's why I disagree with a lot of reviews that say everyone comes of bad, I think they come of too idealistic, (the Belgians want the perfect colony, Lumumba wants a perfect Unity Congo, Tshombe wants wealth and riches, America wants the perfect ally against communism, Russia wants the perfect aide for Communism). And the Congolese? They come off used and abused, ( best example in the movie when Général Janssens tells his black troops your government lied to you and it leaves them all in an uproar) they are always being pulled and pushed into supporting this person or another.

This movie shows in politics a mistake can cost you dearly and this movie everyone makes mistake after mistake until it escalates and ends up destroying the country. Their intentions might be good (or at least in the characters opinion), but it's everyone's mistakes that lead to the downfall of Congo. I don't think anyone is bad in this film, I just think they want too much from people sick of giving and want to start taking.

Overall, it's not just the best political film, it is a great film in general. Acting is fabulous (Eriq Ebouaney as Lumumba was perfect casting I really believe him) script flawless, editing perfect pace, and production value higher than I expected for a central African film. A must watch.


an excellent, thoughtfully produced historical drama--well played, artfully written, shot in ways that convey accurate visual images of the congo, and with more than a few moving moments, especially for those who care about the history of Africa and imperialism. however, a fair amount of worthwhile content gets lost in translation, and because names, acronyms, and so forth are hard to follow. so i would strongly recommend checking a neutral source such as wikipedia to get a basic sense of the story being depicted (and the subsequent history) before enjoying the film. if you have the DVD version, there is also some useful historical background. there is a point towards the end of the film where the name of a character who then speaks with an American accent is actually beeped out--a simple google search of "lumumba film censor" or something similar will reveal a truly fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) twist regarding the production of this important film. this film, if coupled with a little outside research, helps contextualize dozens of other films relating to central/east Africa and/or imperialism, e.g. hotel rwanda, shake hands with the devil, various adaptations of conrad's heart of darkness, and even "ali" when mohammed ali visits kinshasa.


The story of how the (communist) leader who freed the Congo from Belgium imperialism was eliminated by the Western powers through the hand of Mobutu. A story of struggle and injustice, of hope and the search of freedom. The story could be the one of any African country. A very moving film with images full of symbolism and beauty. If you have to see only one foreign film this year, see this one.


Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.

It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.

It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.

Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.

In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.


First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was "communist." If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a "communist" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in "revisionist history" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which "granted" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.

Onto the film...

This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school/secondary school (or maybe university/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.

And to to think that Oliver Stone's "JFK" took over 3 hours, "Lumumba" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.

This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed.


In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell.

Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to.

This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters.

Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see.


It is always great to see a movie that teaches us about history in Africa as they are definitely too few. However, the movie depicts Lumumba as a political leader who wanted the new independent country to be the same as the old colonialist one..., I felt it hard to sympathise with this kind of leadership, yet the movie is somewhat like a homage to the man. There was too little content, explaining how the man got to rise in the first place, and the whole context of Belgium "letting them go". So it is certainly worth going to see as the acting and photography are excellent, especially Mobutu himself. I would just have liked a better political analysis.


Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.

The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.

The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10.


I suspect there's some revisionist history going on here,but one definitely comes away with the feeling that Patrice Lumumba was a trouble-maker who incited his people to violence from the moment the Congo declared independence.His inability to control his people and his decision to bring in Soviet help to get his military back in line was obviously what got the United States involved and led to his assassination.However,by replacing him with Mobutu,the United States didn't solve anything.They made the situation just as bad.Well-acted with excellent cinematography and a rousing score.Definitely worth seeing.


The English are a little too evil, the Scots are a bit too

heroic. The dialogue is overly dramatic at times, and the

transitions between scenes could be smoother.

Still, "The Bruce" has the feel of authentic, if unpolished,

history ... even if it does play loosely with some important

facts.

Sandy Welch is no Gibson or Branagh, but he makes a stalwart

Bruce. And Brian Blessed chews the scenery in delightful

villainy as Edward I.

While lacking the budget needed to make the final battle truly

impressive, they still marshalled an impressive crowd for the

English and Scottish armies. It is, according to filmmakers, the

"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in

the British Isles."

Allowing for a few failings and shortcomings, the film still

does a convincing portrayal.


A fabulous film,which I have now watched several times over since buying the video only four days ago.Yes I am a Colin Firth Fan and Colin was his usual talented, natural gorgeous self.

The interaction between Colin (Matthew Field)and Fissy(Sammy, Nimi's 7 year old Son) was very special and so natural to watch. They were hilariously funny together and also touched my heart strings. The scenes which I loved the most was Sammy and Matt sitting on the wall chatting and Matt then falling backwards off the wall in an hilarious fashion (I won't reveal the content of their discussion so as not to spoil the plot). Also very hilarious was Sammy quizzing Matt about sex, Colin and Fissy were perfect in this scene and making what can be an awkward subject between adult and child just so natural. Colins words and face at the end of that scene were so delightful and said it all! just brilliant. Credit, of course, must also go to Fissy Roberts for his delightful portrayal of Sammy. He played such a lovable and cheeky child character. The two actors were just perfect together.

The interaction between Colin (Matt) and Nia (Nimi)was perfectly balanced and I couldn't agree more that the chemistry between them was wonderful to watch, displaying love,tension and of course passion. It was exciting to see how their delicate blossoming romance gradually unfolded, also showing how their cultural and social divides affected their relationship and was good to see how Colin and Nia sensitively portrayed Matt and Nimi discovering, accepting and overcoming these differences. It kept me fixed to the TV and guessing right until the end of the film.

Colins portrayal of Matt's vulnerable and juvenile side was also perfectly portrayed, so much so, that I found it was difficult to watch when Matt was so mean and childish towards Sammy because he (Matt) felt that Sammy was getting in the way of his romance/relationship with Sams Mother Nimi.One couldn't help feeling very disappointed, angry and frustrated with Matt for treating Sammy this way and this in turn threatening to spoil Matts special relationship with Sammy and Nimi. Colins special talent of 'getting inside a character's head' and displaying to the audience the different sides of a character, was very much in evidence here and pure magic to watch. I must also mention that Colin also has such a good rapport with young actors (see also 'My life so far'a wonderful and not to be missed film).

I also loved the relationship between Matthew and his wife Jenny, both were excellent in displaying to the audience the dark side and tensions within their marriage and that not all seemingly 'Happy Marriages' are quite what they may seem from the outside.

I mustn't forget to mention the reverend whom I thought was very funny, in a serious sort of way! Also Nimi's Mother and family were hilarious as well as bringing across the importance of Nimi's culture and her situation.

The downside, I can't really find a downside,but to be objective about the film and to give credibility to my review, the only negative comment that I would make is that the script writers didn't explain in enough detail as to why Matt collapsed in the car, there was only a vague suggestion, from Nimi, of something being wrong with his heart. However, this didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film, far from it.I just needed to rewind the tape a little for a 2nd take.

I felt that this film had it all, entertaining, uplifting and I loved the rich colours and sunny scenery.The film warmed up a cold winters day and made me smile :-)) All the essential elements were there,laughter,love,tension,sadness,anger,drama and a Warm feel good factor, with, yes plenty of those delicious Colin Firth moments including a very soaked Colin in a 'Wet Shirt scene',not to be missed by any fan, what more could a girl want;-))

I would strongly recommend this film, specially to any Colin Firth Fans ;-)


I've seen this movie twice already and am very impressed with it.

The conversations between Nimi and her mother plus Nimi and Matthew are very touching. The Nigerian community is shown very truthfully and as colourfully as it usually is.

Although certain things could have done with a bit more explanation; if we knew why Matthew was in the South of France in the first place, the scenes following Matthew being found in his car would be more understandable.

Luckily, Optimum Releasing have a website that has detailed production notes that help to make such scenes better to understand.

I would go and see it again but unfortunately it had a limited release in London and is not longer available to see. I hope the video release gets it to a bigger audience because the film deserves it.


*Warning! Some spoilers!*

Matt, a rich writer, is in fact still just a boy in his behaviour. He doesn't care about anyone's but his own needs and couldn't care less about the consequences of any of his actions. Just as he gets to know Nimi and her bonds with her familiy and her communitiy he starts to feel that something is missing in his live.

He starts to realize that he is in fact lonely and stuck in impersonal structures that are just convenient but lack heart and commitment. Nevertheless he shies away from any responsibilties and is reluctant to change his live. But will he be able to settle again in his old life and ignore the bonds he's already - unconsciously - formed?

Nimi's situation is the absolute opposite. She is pressed into the regulations of her Nigerian community, its prejudices and its medieval values. Being a single mother her position is difficult and it gets even worse when she falls in love with Matt, a white devil (as the Referend would say), a man who cannot commit. The women of the community plan to marry her to the Referend to end her single status and give Sammy "a name". But that would mean for Nimi to give up all independence and self-determination. But is there an alternative for her if she wants Sammy to be accepted and herself to become a respected member of the community?

This movie has it all: a very sensitive and sensual love story (with VERY sexy scenes of Matt and Nimi) and an endearing child who is eagerly matchmaking, a beautiful scenery in lively colours.

Colin Firth (*swoon*) and Nia Long show a great chemistry. It's just fantastic to watch them. And Fissy Roberts as Sammy is just to die for. You simply want to adopt him. I just love the way Sammy and Matthew talk to each other. They are both on the same level in many ways. Especially when Sammy asks Matt about Sex. This scene is absolutely adorable!!

Almost nothing to complain about.... wait! That's not true. One thing is not good: That the movie is not long enough! (Well, and maybe that the Referend is too bad and too silly to be convincing....)

10 of 10, by all means!


This is a great movie. When two people from different backgrounds and social status think that they have nothing to offer each other and in the end they what each other needs it a testament to what the heart knows. Sometimes we wonder why one man is with a woman or vise versa and the outward appearances say one thing to our eye, but what they offer each other from within that we cannot see is amazing and unexplainable. When Nimi thought that Matthew had nothing to offer her and when Matthew was only looking for a fling (because he had an open marriage w/his wife Jenny), in the end they realized that they could not and did not want to exist without the other. It was worth it to them to resist what family and friends thought and what society said was right to be with each other. This movie kind of restores my faith in love.


I love this film. There is something for everyone. It if funny, saddening, passionate and dramatic. The mixture of two completely different cultures creates a whole new world that the viewer cannot help but want to be a part of. I must admit that I am slightly biased, as Colin Firth is my favourite actor and so nothing that he does is wrong in my eyes (!), but in this film his tremendous acting talent is apparent and it is furthered even more by the beautiful acting of his co-star Nia Long. The problems that their love affair suffers makes it, ironically, more believable and the simple features like the contrast between the colours of Matthew's and Nimi's clothes alone, makes this film all the more enchanting. I defy anyone that cannot be moved by this story. I find it enchanting and have watched it at least ten times since I bought the film a week ago!


Personally, I think the movie is pretty good. It almost rates an 8. I liked the ethnography aspect as well as the gorgeous photography. Colin Firth's character isn't the most likable but he does a better than decent job with the role. The heroine, played by the beautiful Nia Long, is a familiar film heroine in that she's trying to do what she thinks is the best for her child -- marrying a respected member of her expatriate community -- while fighting her attraction for the "bad" man -- one who's not a member of her community (the "outsider"). Most of the film is about this mother's struggle: should she do what's expected of her, what she thinks is best for her son or should she follow her heart? I don't want to give away the ending. Let me just say that it's a feel-good movie with gorgeous location shots, exquisite African dress (it's worth seeing the film just for the women's brilliantly colored African clothing and headdresses), and likable characters overall. The actor who plays Nia Long's son is bright and adorable. The plot is a bit formulaic, but I liked the movie nonetheless. If you're a Colin Firth fan you MUST see this film. If you like chic flicks, see it. I think I'll watch it again tonight!


Duck_of_Death needs to watch this film again, as his major criticism is completely baseless. The film never once forgot about the time delay, and it was mentioned explicitly in a couple of places. The crew were never shown having conversations with mission control that didn't obey the time delay rules.

One thing I did think was a bit far-fetched was the amount of risk involved - would a crew land on a planet on which pressure suits would only last two hours? I doubt it. Would a manned space ship go into a star's corona? I doubt it. Would humans land on a moon that was being bombarded with huge amounts of radiation? I doubt it. Also, the ship seemed overly sturdy. Would a ship designed like that risk atmospheric flight to slow it down? I doubt it. Would it survive being hit by comet debris? I doubt it. I think in both cases the stresses on the structure would be too much. But all-in-all, the unlikely scenarios were compensated by some nicely done special effects, good editing and production, and some good acting, especially by the actors portraying the ship's commander and the Russian cosmonaut.


I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead!


1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.


i strongly recommend it to anybody who likes good plots, good actors (even if not well known)(often, it's just better that way), science and/or science fiction presented in an intelligent way on the (small) screen, good special effects even if they did not have billions of dollars to produce it...

much better than any war in the stars...

there was only one comment which was not necessary: talking about the comet, the commentator says that LIFE was maybe brought on earth through a comet... that's fun, there must be always a chance for a magic way, huh?! That's what's great about LIFE, can come anywhere, no need of extern force


My main criticism is quite simply that it isn't long enough or detailed enough. I would have loved to see more of everything: the building of the vessel, the engineering, the training, the first lift to orbit, preparations for departure, Venus Orbital Injection, everything. I would have liked to see more of the first leg, Venus to Earth, instead of zipping there like a n°10 corporation bus. In fact, I would have liked to see a series on the scale of Earth Story made of this, with a full hour dedicated to every planet and maybe another to the loop around the Sun. As it was, I was left hungry. On the other hand, I do understand budgets and viewers' attention-spans.

Re the science: Let's be fair about the speed-of-light time-lag: they did mention at the beginning that there was a lag in conversations, but they let this evaporate once they reached the outer planets. Some kind of conversation had to be presented to the viewers, and we have to assume that the lag was edited out for the sake of palatability; so no complaints there. But zero for noisy spaceships. The only film in which spaceships make no noise was Kubrick's 2001, and even then he copped out by using the noise of the crew breathing in their helmets - which *was* pretty effective. I wish the makers of Space Odyssey had realized just how eerie the sight of vast rocket-motors blasting in absolute silence might be but alas, Pegasus lets out much the same roar as every other cardboard spaceship in every other cardboard SciFi film.

But the rest of the science was excellent. No complaints there, in fact praise for bringing out the radiation problems as well as they did. I just hope that having done this film won't discourage the BBC from making a really detailed version, but I suppose that's not for next week or next year either...


Every time the supposed explorers and we , the audience, is primed to set its first sights one of the wonderous new worlds, for some ungodly reason, the filmmakers decided to distract with an "emergency" or some false alarm or some bit of artificial dramatic suspense.

So instead of calmly enjoying the surface of Io, or standing over the rings of Saturn or concentrating on the magic of flying by a comet or an asteroid, we are distracted into worrying about the wellbeing and survival of the characters. Big let down !!!!

The filmmakers seem to be unsure what they want. A documentary of the natural wonders in our solar system, or a suspense thriller in which the viewer cares more about the characters than the subject matter. Come on.

Hello. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd watch a real Narrative sci-fi movie.

Sure it's a docu-drama. But the characters and their survival here (the risks of such a mission - should be secondary to the subject matter ). Wait. Yes the risks of such a mission are an important part of the subject matter - since essentially this is a film about a space mission , not just about the solar system. But it was overplayed and distracted strongly from the discovery of new worlds we were supposed to be enjoying.

Otherwise, the film was remarkable in giving a very realistic feel for the human elements of a space mission , the squabbles, the tensions, the weight of responsibility, the near-fatal mistakes, the sacrifices , etc. Also it would fit very well in the hard-sci-fi subgenre - in fact it would be one of the best , because here the science was almost closely adhered to.

But the distractions were awful.

Otherwise, I missed showing the effects of being in space for several years on the astronauts AFTER landing on Earth. Also not