Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment.


I've read some grumbles about the court scenes. These people betray their ignorance. This production went to simply amazing lengths to recreate all aspects of the period in which the story occurred. Courtly manners are something few people outside the court ever see. While the acting may appear highly stylized, it is, in fact, as close a replication as possible of the behavior of individuals in their particular stations as the director could create. The actor's facial expressions are a marvel, particularly the duplicitous Marquis Changxin and the King's mother.

There are, of course, reflections of both Greek and Shakespearian tragedy in the relationship between the king, his parents and his love. The juxtaposition of the king transforming from good to bad and the assassin from bad to good provides much food for thought on the evolution of an individual's nature. This movie would provide much to ponder in a college course on the humanities.

At the same time, it almost rushes along, even in the slowest scenes heading towards an inexorable denouement. One suspects the involvement of large portions of the troop movements, which were quite awesome. It makes The Lord of the Rings battle scenes pale by comparison. Few directors have the ability to literally field thousands of humans on the field of battle just for art's sake. I recall one scene in which at least 30,000 troops can be seen moving across a huge plain. The logistics for such a shot would have been staggering.

I could go on... but simply, I can't recommend this film highly enough.


I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.


This is an epic film about the unification of the ancient kingdoms of China in the third century BC. What makes it interesting is the tragic downfall of the king and all the palace intrigue going on around him. It reminded me a bit of "King Lear" and some of the other Shakespeare plays.

The king starts out with noble ambitions, to unify the kingdoms under one ruler and to stop all the quarrelling so that the people can prosper and lead better lives. He and his childhood sweetheart, played beautifully by Li Gong, concoct a scheme whereby she pretends to go into exile in a rival kingdom in order to recruit an assassin to kill the king, thus giving him a pretext to go to war. But while she's away, the king becomes sadistic in his lust for power and goes on a killing spree.

There are numerous side plots that keep the action going. There is the Marquis, who pretends to be stupid and foppish but who's really very clever and wants to become king himself. He fathers two children with the king's mother and manages to keep it secret for years. Then there is the Prime Minister, a political rival to the king, who turns out to really be his father.

The assassin is a complex character himself. An adept swordsman and killer, he is undergoing a reformation when the king's lover comes to recruit him. He wants nothing more with killing, but is eventually won over by Li Gong (who wouldn't be?) when he sees how cruel and vicious the king has become.

Some spectacular cinematography, especially the battle scenes that are carried out on a grand scale - like they used to say, a cast of thousands, literally. The acting is OK, nothing special. It's the story that's interesting, though at over two and a half hours, it pushes the limit.

Definitely worth viewing.


This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.


After watching the movie a few times, I found so many subtle touches and emotions within the dialogue. Jing Ke, the Assassin has become one of favorite movie characters of all time. This fine Chinese actor says more with his eyes and his economy of words and movements then any big screen American actor today. Qin, the Emperor, is brilliant as he leads the audience to believe the kindness in his heart, only to unleash the most cruel acts upon the people around him. The promises he makes with incredible passion and shattered with an evil fist. Gong Li, as in just about every movie I've ever seen her in, is simply fantastic. Her screen dominance is so graceful and emotionally charged.

In case you couldn't tell, I loved this movie.


This is an excellent film. No, it's not Mel Gibson in "Braveheart," but then, it's not trying to be. Actually, "The Emperor and the Assassin" probably has (thankfully) more in common with a Shakespearean production than a Hollywood blockbuster.

In the third century BC, the King of Qin is attempting to unite (in other words "conquer") the seven kingdoms of China. He has already overthrown the Kingdom of Han. Now he needs an excuse to invade the Kingdom of Yan.

This is where the Lady Zhao comes in. She and the King have been friends since childhood. They are obviously very much in love, but cannot marry for political reasons. Together they devise a plot. She will pretend to have fallen into disfavor with the King and escape to Yan. Once there she will convince the Prince of Yan to send an assassin back to kill the King. When the assassination fails, the King will have his excuse to invade Yan.

Once in Yan, however, Lady Zhao begins to reconsider. Hearing and seeing more and more examples of her old childhood friend's ruthlessness, she begins to wonder if the King may need to be assassinated for real.

One sure sign that you're not watching a Hollywood production is the final encounter between the King and the assassin. Unlike a Hollywood movie where the hero and villain are clearly defined and the final outcome already predetermined, this is a fight that could truly go either way.

This is a well crafted and well acted story of a tumultuous time in Chinese history. There is a mixture of both incredible beauty and incredible ugliness. Most beautiful of all, however, is Gong Li as the Lady Zhao. I grow more and more convinced every time I see her that Gong Li is the most beautiful woman in the world.

I must say, however, that she does have one unintentionally funny line in this film. Early on Gong Li asks one of her servants "Do I have a beautiful face?"

Duh!!!


For a feature film, the plot closely follows history--or at least historical gossip. But then the Chinese, who know the story very well from seeing it portrayed again and again, would never tolerate it otherwise. The attention to detail is wonderful, especially for anyone who has read Sima Qian's account in the Records of the Historian. Jing Ke, according to Sima Qian, did indeed make an attempt on Qin Shi Huang's life at the request of the Crown Prince of Yan before unification. Sima Qian explicitly mentions both the head of General Fan and the dagger rolled up into the map, as well as the dagger being thrown into the brass column. Although Jing Ke is described as no stranger to swordplay, he's hardly the invincible warrior portrayed by Chen Kaige. Jing Ke is indeed this film's weakest link. In reality (again, according to Sima Qian), he was a heavy drinker and put off his visit to Qin for as long as possible, spending a good deal of time with the ladies of Yan before the crown prince finally ordered him on his way. He was, in short, a human being and was not looking forward to death although he was willing to accept it. Chen Kaige's Jing Ke is afraid of death, but not his own. He is the classic ruthless killer turned disillusioned pacifist. His love (or maybe just affection) for a woman and pity for several hundred children whom Zheng had buried alive (not even two thousand years of hostile Confucian historians claimed Qin Shi Huang did this, although there is a legend about him burying 460 Confucians up to their necks and then beheading them)is enough to make this former assassin kill again. The melodrama is not convincing and the character ends up being just plain boring. The acting here isn't shabby, though not very interesting given the character. As for Lady Zhou, in all the numerous stories I've heard about Qin Shi Huang, she's never come up. Anyway, Gong Li is famous enough for Americans to have heard of her (thanks to Zhang Yimou) and there needed to be a love interest, so here she is. It's unfortunate that her performance is almost as wooden as Jing Ke's character. She's done much better (in Qiu Ju for example) at being subtle; here she just barely manages presence. But all of this is trivial compared to the extraordinary acting of Li Xuejian as Zheng himself. Qin Shi Huang is for the Chinese rather what Milton's Satan is for us: accepted as a villain, but a noble one. Qin Shi Huang's accomplishments radiate an awe all the way across two thousand years into the present and Li captures his frightening will without compromising his humanity. Li's performance is enough, but the scope of the film is grand although the photography is purposely drab. It does feel ancient. The score is adequate, scarcely moving though very appropriate to the action. Though I've only seen it once, I believe that Chen Kaige should be given more credit for his camera work than other reviewers have allowed him. The opening credits are exhilarating. If five stars its absolutely average, I given three more for Li Xuejian's acting and Chen Kaige as an actor, writer, and director.


The Emperor and the Assassin (w/English Subtitles) at 161 minutes is long, but the time is packed with a story that barely fits into it. Golden hued palace scenes and dusty yellow panoramas of Chinese landscapes background a true story of China's unifying King, circa 300 BCE. An intricate plot with a myriad twists and turns is played out with excellent portrayals by the cast. King Qin's simple wish for a unified Empire for his common people is fulfilled, but not without treachery, plots and counter plots and oh yes, bodies. Lots of bodies. This epic story of China's beginnings is a great way for Westerners to glimpse little known Asian history. Emperor Qin's legacies include the thousands of life-size terra-cotta figures which are still being excavated today. As an historical person, this film makes it clear that Emperor Qin should be regarded along with George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar, to name a few of the world's greatest conquerors/statesmen. I highly recommend seeing The Emperor and the Assassin, especially on the big screen.


May contain spoilers

This historical movie was so refreshing. Although it may be exagerating the actual events, it does show the heartless nature of emperor Qui, which he was later infamous for. And there wasn't a single computer generated person in it. I think it's great that China has produce such an epic film. The costumes and the settings were beautiful, the performances were also excellent. Dignity vs. death is a major theme in this movie and i think it reflects the Chinese history and culture. I also enjoyed a little allusion to the terracotta warriors, a 3d map carved of the conquest of China with individual soldiers. Emperor Qui of course later as entombed with his life size terracotta warriors.

I also enjoyed the scene with the dwarf, he was a very interesting character, even if he only had a small scene.

9/10


I work at a nuclear power plant, so I am getting a kick out of these replies.

Seriously, I do. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_Station and you can see where I work.

I could not think of a safer industry to work in. We are required by procedures to report events as minor as paper cuts. Any issue identified as being a potential concern with respect to nuclear, radiological, or industrial safety is immediately reported in the corrective action process.

Bottom line is that nuclear plants in the US operate with safety in the front of their mind.


>>>>Author: msgreen-1 from Canada >>>>The big problem was the "China Syndrome" claim - that if the reactor error occurred and radioactive waste leaked out it could burn its way straight through the earth to China. A lot of people have made fun of this and if the movie makers meant it seriously then yes it should be made fun of. The spill wouldn't make it anywhere near the center of the earth or even the molten rock. Even if it did make it to the center of the Earth how would it come out in China? It would have to flow against gravity the rest of the way! Also China is not the opposite side of the world, the Indian Ocean is.<<<<< ......... ......... ........................ ................ ..................... .................. .............. ............ ................

This point is brought up by the characters of the film, saying that of course it could not happen, as the core would hit ground water and release a radio-active cloud, raining down on the population.

Before you try to find a weak point in the film, you should watch it first!!!! Don't judge a book by it's title...


As long as you don't mind paying a little more attention than you normally might for other films, this is one of the best "thrillers" you'll ever see. The film portrays an incident that might occur in real life; nothing in it seems fictional at all, in fact. It also portrays how people might react in real life.

In fact, it portrays these so well that is seems like real life. Combine that with the lack of a soundtrack, and you've almost got the best news-like movie you've ever seen. Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon are particularly good in this late-seventies masterpiece, evoking concern on her end and genuine tragic pity on his end. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes thrillers.


Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.

Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.

Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.

The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released.


It's some years since I've seen this movie, so forget most of the details. However, I loved it at the time and found the plot intensely gripping, the climax heart stopping. I remember being literally on the edge of my seat at the theatre back in 1979.

Jane Fonda plays a Los Angeles reporter, Kimberley, who stumbles upon an accident at a local nuclear power facility. She wants to go public with the story, aided by her hippie cameraman (Michael Douglas) who has photographed the event, but a sinister conspiracy attempts to cover it all up. Jack Lemmon is absolutely wonderful in the role of the nuclear plant's conflicted middle manager, torn between loyalty to his company and 'doing the right thing' by reporting the perilous situation. His facial expressions speak volumes here.

Apart from the engrossing plot and riveting tension, this film is all about Jack Lemmon, his character, and his superb acting performance. As for Jane Fonda (I was a huge fan of hers at the time), I suspect she just moved on from her anti-war protests to taking on the nuclear industry.

This movie seems intended as a nuclear scare tactic. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island notwithstanding (they're different types of reactors), our Canadian CANDU reactor is safe and well respected around the world. I wouldn't hesitate to reside near the nuclear power plant about an hour's drive away, where my friend works as a very competent engineer. Apparently they shut down for every teeny problem, irregardless of the financial loss. I sincerely doubt that there are any conspiracies afoot there. One can hardly imagine any of the managers or highly trained operators willing to risk any sort of meltdown or whatever...it's absolute tomfoolery. Of course the moral here is to spare no expense or effort either in building the facility or ensuring its ongoing safety.

If we want our Western lifestyle, we have to get our energy somewhere. For those who claim nuclear power can never be made completely safe (true, of course), perhaps they should volunteer as a coal miner or else return to pre electricity horse and buggy days.

By all means, enjoy this entertaining and highly suspenseful movie, which apparently is based (loosely? embellished?) on a true story. It's a real chiller, a thriller, and maybe (?) even a killer, but please, don't get your attitudes about the operation and safety of nuclear power plants from it.


It was easy to dismiss this film as hyperbole at the time of its release. Fonda, Douglas and Lemmon were known "lefties", but the accident at Three Mle Island provided shocking context to this fictional drama.

This film works on many levels, taking shots at both public utilities and TV news. 1979 was the zenith of the infamous "Happy Talk" format of TV news (see also "Ron Burgundy") and it's on display here in all its glory. The sonorous anchor grimly reads a story about a "grinding head-on collision" before cheerfully introducing Kimberley Wells (Fonda), doing a story about a veterinarian who makes house (or is that "aquarium?") calls. The show's producer and the station manager argue about content - or lack thereof - behind the scenes.

There are a few technical errors. The PR flack (James Hampton) shows Fonda and Douglas the requisite scale model of a pressurized water reactor plant, built by Westinghouse. Later, as Lemmon and Wilford Brimley (nicely playing Lemmon's friend/colleague, caught between duty and loyalty) fight a sudden crisis in the plant' s control room, they're obviously running a boiling-water plant (built by GE.) A small point, but curious, considering how many details the screenwriters got right.

Like any good drama, the film asks more questions than it answers. The real-world accident at TMI proves the film's basic premise. The working title for the film was originally "Power", and you'll see why. As nuclear power prepares to make a comeback in these days of $3 gas, "The China Syndrome" is as relevant today as it was over 25 years ago.


Large corporations Vs. Conscientious Do good-ers. We seem to witness events (both real life and reel life) of this sort all the time and most of the time greed wins by employing every means (dirty) necessary and the truth gets suppressed. At least in this movie Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) got his points across and paid for it dearly. We have seen several more movies of this sort being made in the recent years, the most memorable of which was 'The Insider' where Russell Crowe played a tobacco industry scientist who tried to blow the whistle claiming that the Industry added more nicotine in cigarettes to make smokers addicted. There was also this reporter-protagonist angle where the reporter is looking for the scoop of his/her dreams and the protagonist is faced with this moral dilemma where he/she has to choose between righteousness and his livelihood and sometimes his/her life.

Jane Fonda played reporter Kimberly wells to perfection. She plays a reporter who wishes to pursue serious news whereas her bosses value her more as an 'Eye-Candy'. She and her crew (the cameraman played by post-'Coma' Michael Douglas who is also the producer of the movie) witness an accident in a nuclear power plant while they were on a visit. Cameraman Michael Douglas sneakily/illegally gets footage of that event on tape in spite being a no-photography zone and smuggles it out of the station. The station refuses to air it and informs the corporation that owns the nuclear station.

In the mean time the chief engineer Jack Godell launches an investigation of his own and discovers a lot of irregularities in the equipment that's being used for the reactor. This starts all the dirty politics of corruption and greed.

This is a good thriller and it managed to create a lot of tension in the audience till the end and the funny thing was that there was no background score to suggest all the scary moments. Now that's great and unusual in movies. Performances were all good and I love Jack Lemmon. We primarily know him for his comedic roles but he is equally good in dramatic roles. I give this movie an 8/10.


The thirty years that have passed since the making of this movie have made the suspense wither somewhat, and will not keep the public as attentive as I am sure it did in 1979. It is still entertaining enough though - and regains some of it's power when one finds out its sad relevance today (check out the story of FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse nuclear plant). With the top of the line actors and steady pace one can learn to overlook the dated '70s environment, and see it for the political critique that it is. I doubt however it will survive the test of time. It might not be entirely forgotten thanks to its cast, but otherwise the dialog, setting and score will make a remake of this movie unavoidable . As the oil situation now is comparable to the situation in the 70's, and alternative sources of energy are again becoming a hotter topic, we can only hope the current generation gets blockbuster warnings about the risks of (privatized) nuclear power like this.


This is a pretty good thriller at a nuclear power plant in southern California that was directed by James Bridges and stars Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas. Fonda plays a TV reporter who wants to be an investigative journalist but is only allowed to be a TV reporter. Douglas is an independent cameraman and Lemmon is a supervisor at a nuclear plant. Fonda and Douglas are sent on a routine assignment at a nuclear power plant and an accident almost happens and they get it all on film. Everyone tries to cover it up except Fonda and Douglas, so Douglas steals the film. Lemmon starts to investigate and finds out the company cares more about profit then safety at the plant. It's a good movie with a pretty good ending.


I rented "The China Syndrome" recently mainly because I read that it was this film that inspired ABC to make "The Day After". "Syndrome", however, is more of a thriller than a drama. The film is quite political, but I agree strongly with its message - nuclear power, though extremely efficient, is far too dangerous for common use. The risks are simply too high. Hopefully, the persons in charge of real nuclear plants are far more responsible and ethical than those depicted in the film. However, given that the real-life near-disaster at Three Mile Island happened mere months after this film was released puts that in question. (In fairness, that case was probably more one of incompetence than of corruption.)

"Syndrome" is not just critical of nuclear power, but also of modern news media, similar in vein to "Network", only much more serious. Being a print journalist myself, I am quite familiar with how people perceive the media; but it was a little frightening to see that even in the '70's TV news was already selling out. When Jane Fonda's character tries to convince her boss to let her do real news instead of fluff, she is advised not to try the change, as "research" finds that people prefer a pretty girl to do fluff, not hard news.

What truly makes the film memorable, however, is the incredible suspense generated in its final third. During this period, the viewer is constantly fearing for the lives of the protagonists, whether the danger is coming from hired thugs or the potential meltdown of the nuclear plant. And that very last scene - I won't give it away, of course - but it will keep you guessing.

On a final note, I did get a distinct feel watching the film that it seemed at times more like a TV movie than a true theatrical film. This could be, however, due more to the fact that the rental tape I was watching was quite old, and not formatted to fit TV screens the way videos and DVDs are today.


James Bridges' "The China Syndrome" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.

Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. "The China Syndrome" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.

The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for "Save the Tiger"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for "Klute" and "Coming Home" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". This isn't your standard "spot the star" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.

There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.

The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes "The China Syndrome" so good.

**** out of 4 stars


This film is definetly Fonda's best film. The Plot is amazing, the acting is amazing, and the directing is amazing. An all time classic, this should have won best picture not kramer Vs. Kramer. Though it was not even nominated. Jack Lemmon and Micheal Douglas are also at their best. One of the best endings ever. If you haven't seen this film run don't walk to rent it. Should have been on afi's top 100. See it not just for Fonda but for everything.

**** out of **** 4 out of 4


The China Syndrome is a perfectly paced thriller and not slow or boring at all, as some people tend to say. The transitions from one scene to another are great and the tension build up in the film will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire two hours. Jack Lemmon is great, as always, as the somewhat nervous plant operator and Jane Fonda succeeds again in bringing some real emotions into the story. You can see this film as a political statement of the time, or just as an intelligently made thriller. Either way it is definitely worth watching.


I wish Hollywood would make more movies like The China Syndrome. Because this one scores on every level.

It has an intelligent, believable script. It shows you that it's not only nuclear power itself, but the money involved in it, that causes danger. And the movie also gives you a great behind-the-scenes look of how television is made.

It scores as a thriller: the first time I saw it, it kept me right on the edge of my seat. And it scores as a character-movie: I really cared for the main characters. Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, Wilford Brimley and, most of all, Jack Lemmon are great.


This is an extraordinary topical thriller. Fonda and Douglas are good, but Lemmon blows them away. He plays a man who must go against everything he thought was right. Bridges paces the film very well with a lot of tension. The last of the seventies expose films.


Highly politically charged drama that, while biased, is extremely well-handled and one of the most intelligent films ever made. It contains almost no preaching, but rather follows a naive TV reporter who gradually comes to realize the threat presented by nuclear power plants, not because of an inherent danger, but because the purveyors are more interested in the bottom line than in the safety of those affected.

Many hated the film because they saw it as a political tract made by ultra-liberals like Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas, but if you view it simply as a drama, it's gripping, exciting, full of well-developed, distinctive characters and, ultimately, a truly suspenseful contemporary thriller that hits close to home.

Historical note: For some, especially those in the energy industry and inhabitants of the Harrisburg, PA metro area, it hit perhaps a little too close to home, as less than a week after this film was released, the devastating explosion at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility occurred.

Update, 04/08/2007: In the nearly a decade since I first wrote this critique, I've heard a lot of commentary on the film. One thing I think really needs to be noted is that this film is not the "ultra-liberal" anti-nuclear tirade that it's often tagged as being.

While the makers and stars are (or were) notable "Hollywood establishment" liberals, what this film attacks is not the very idea of nuclear power, but rather the idea of human greed, corruption and fallibility calling into question the potential hazards of something that nature has already made dangerous.

No one who accepts reality can argue the fact that human exposure to nuclear radiation is at least quite likely to be fatal. Close friends of mine who worked at a nuclear plant for several years even told me of their employer's official policy on the maximum "safe" exposure levels that its employees could handle.

You don't have to believe that corporations are inherently evil in order to accept that individuals, in pursuit of wealth and power, are greedy and often corrupt. And even if you refute that claim, you can't dispute that all humans are prone to make mistakes. When it comes to exposing innocent people to nuclear radiation, we can't afford any mistakes, and that, more than anything, is the argument this film seeks to make.

Condemn it if you must, but try to have a little perspective. We're currently engaged in a war whose ongoing results are quite different from those originally predicted, an incredibly costly war with no end in sight. And whether or not you feel the war was necessary to combat global terrorism, you can't dispute the reality that the length, the financial cost, and most importantly the loss of human life have all far exceeded the levels that the "experts" assured us of back in 2003. So even if no one involved is greedy or corrupt, "mistakes were made," and mistakes of a pretty serious magnitude, to boot. The same kind of serious mistakes, if allowed to arise in the nuclear industry, could render much of the earth's surface uninhabitable.


It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.

Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.

The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.

Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.

Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.

Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.

What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen.

The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.

See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about.


"The China Syndrome" could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.

I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes "The China Syndrome" more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.

I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.


I am a big fan of the 1995 version, which I have seen many times and consider a subtle, excellent film. This 1971 version I bought yesterday, a bit hesitantly, but now that I have seen it I am glad I did, because it is truer to the book and to Austen's insights. The 1995 version has more dramatic power largely because it sharpens many of the characters -- in the 1995 version Lady Russell is snobbier, more manipulative, less truly looking out for Anne; Sir Walter is even more vain and vapid; Elizabeth is nastier; Mary is more insufferable; Mr. Elliot is more smarmy; Lady Dalrymple is much more stupid -- but I think the characterizations in this 1971 version are closer to the book, to Austen's vision, and to the real people of the time. The 1971 version also includes more of the key lines and scenes from the book, including especially the key scene in the field where Anne overhears Wentworth talking to Louisa (or is it Henrietta?) about the importance of strength of character. I found the acting more subtle and evocative than do many of the critics here, but the acting in the 1995 version is more powerful. I agree with the critics here that the actress who plays Anne is too old for the part; I looked up her entry on IMDb and she was 38 at the time of the filming, when her character is supposed to be 28. I thought her acting was subtle and effective, however. Wentworth is of the correct age and I found him very convincing. In particular, this 1971 version of Wentworth has much more of his sense of humor and teasing; the 1995 one, much more of the sense of power a sea captain would have, and more passion. The admiral in the 1971 version lacks the gruff presence and human warmth of the one in the 1995 version and lacks any feeling of the power an admiral certainly would convey; I found him the one truly weak element in the production. I agree with others that the staging of the "falling" scene was too wooden, and it seemed unconvincing that she would have been so injured by such a little fall. However, it could be that she banged the back of her head on the edge of the stone step, which if so, really would produce a very dangerous injury, and would make the scene more convincing than the scene in the 1995 version, where she falls farther but is clear of any sharp edge that could plausibly cause a major head injury. As to the costuming that some have criticized, I am no expert and can't respond, but I will note that none of the Navy characters (Wentworth, admiral Croft, Benwick, Harville) in the 1971 version wear their uniforms, while in the 1995 version all of them consistently wear their fancy uniforms. I suspect that the 1971 version is the accurate one, and it always bothered me a bit in the 1995 version, the officers being always in uniform when clearly the nation is at peace and the officers are detached from active duty. My father and grandfather were career US navy captains who commanded aircraft carriers and submarines, and they did not spend every day while on leave or at leisure in their dress blues. I doubt it was any different 180 years ago. The uniforms give the 1995 version a lot of zing, and I prefer it, but I doubt it is accurate historically that these officers wore their uniforms so frequently. Lastly, it is true, the production values of the 1971 version are a lot less than the 1995 version, but given the year (1971), the TV format, and the budget, we can't blame the artists for it. Contemporary viewers who can make a mental allowance for the lower production values can find this version well worth their time.


I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.

I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.

Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.

Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.

I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.

So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.

The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.

And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it!


I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait.

I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.


Here is one of Jane Austen's movies that I found very delightful. I read the book first then listened to it on CD and was captivated by how a young Victorian girl could be persuaded against marrying the man she loved due to his lack of a fortune or education. The joy of knowing that Anne is evidently reunited with a lost love. The fact that her godmother tries to marry her off to a good for nothing cousin who's only out for money. Looking at the snobbery that comes from the upper classes and how class distinctions can divide couples from following their hearts. Captain Wentworth realization that he still loves Anne after seven years. His final understanding that Anne's love was constant all that time and they she wasn't going to let her family interfere with her true happiness and eventual marriage to one she truly loved.


Despite this production having received a number of poor reviews, it actually holds up quite well for its age. Note also that it is not a BBC programme, it was simply licensed to them by Granada Ventures when the Jane Austen collection was released on DVD.

So how does it compare with other adaptations of the same novel? The most well-known version these days is the 1995 film with Amanda Root as Anne Elliott and Ciaran Hinds as Captain Frederick Wentworth. That film was of course shorter but a good snapshot of the story - the earlier version, with Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall in the same roles, had four hours to tell the story and moved at a more leisurely pace.

Firbank is a good ten years too old for her role, but she is very good - Marshall is excellent as Wentworth, a man disappointed in love, and bitter about interference. And hidden in the cast are people who also contribute - Michael Culver, later seen in Cadfael, as Harvill; Richard Vernon, later seen in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, as Admiral Croft; Noel Dyson, earlier in Coronation Street, as Mrs Musgrove.

One criticism I do have is that the hairstyles are a bit distracting, and that the costumes are awful! Still, this shouldn't detract from a hugely enjoyable Austen adaptation.


This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.

Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.

People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.


I know it was supposed to be a long walk, but really!!!!

The costumes were a bit yuk, but still... it was the 1970's I suppose!!!

It was a bit long and dull, so give me the newer version any day!


This is a very touching movie. This is a story about a special bond between a child and his grandfather. A villager (Arun Nalawade) brings his grandson, Parashuram, to the city to get his eyes treated. But comes to know that Parashuram (Aswin Chitale) has some rare cancer of eyes and has to undergo an operation and will lose both his eyes. The movie is all about the emotions and the turmoil both them go through and how they accept the whole thing. The movie avoid any melodrama and tells this story in a simple way. Though the movie is in Marathi, language is not a barrier at all.It proves that to make good movie you do not need item songs, superstars and usual masala. Excellent performances. This is India's entry for Oscars 2004. Hope it gets the nomination at least. Would rate 10/10.


This is a film about a six year old child from a village in Maharashtra (a state in India) and his grandfather who come to Pune (a city in Maharashtra) to treat the child's eyes. here the grandfather gets to know that the child has cancer in both eyes and that they have to be removed to save the child's life. the movie is all about the main characters' and their feelings and actions until the operation.

The movie is not a typical cliché Indian movie, so dun expect to see songs or romance or melodrama. this ia a supremely crafted sensitive movie which resorts to silent expressions rather than over the top dialogs to get the point thru. witness the scene where the grandfather is told about the need to remove the child's eyes. the acting is superb, dialogs heart breaking. your heart goes out for the grandfather who has the unenviable task of telling the child and his mother about the operation.

the handling of the subject has been excellent. the film was made under great hardship by the director, Sandeep Sawant who had to knock many doors to gather the Rs. six million (approx. $130000) budget. even then the final product seems polished and has decent production values. also witness the subtle city village contrast shown by the director by incorporating some random shots of the boy's life in the village. Sawant definitely seems to prefer village life.

THe acting by all is excellent. Amruta Subhash as the social worker is competent adding the required humane touch to her role. Sandeep Kulkarni as the docter is great, showing perfect mannerisms of a doctor. Ashwin Chitale as the child is a natural. he doesn't seem to be acting. everything about him is natural and does not seem forced.

But towering above all is Arun Nalawade as the grandfather. he is astounding in his role. mere words cannot describe his work. it is a performance to cherish forever.

Shwaas is a sincere effort to make good cinema. it should not be ignored just for the fact that it shows that if things are kept simple, the the results can be really surprising. 10/10.


Caught this movie on DD while flipping channels...And thank heavens, that too when it just started.. Having studied in Pune, this film touched off many happy memories of the city...that apart, one wonders why more movies like this aren't made...Every character is so well etched-the grandpa, the kid, the doc...except for the social worker who grates a tad, the rest of the movie hardly has a flaw...a deserving entry for the Oscars, even if it wasn't nominated...definitely leaves a lump in the throat...who sez u need mush to tickle ur lacrimals ? And to think that this movie needed Sachin Tendulkar to propagate it. Inspite of being in Marathi, there was hardly a moment where I wasn't able to follow the movie...the subtitles were good.. A must watch for any fan of good cinema.


Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination

Enjoy and again don't miss it


I am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.

It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.

Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like "mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe"(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.

Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone!


After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.

The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.

This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this.


It was very refreshing to watch this beautiful movie. The director maintained focus on the main subject without venturing into side plots (the doctor's family or stories of the other hospital patients), that are so typical of Bollywood assembly-line products. He kept the narrative simple to comprehend and made sure all the actors are true to the characters that they are supposed to portray. The rustic ways of the grandfather in the clinic, the cold and unemotional behavior of the surgeon, the zeal of the social worker gave the movie a feel of genuineness. I am also glad that the director did not fall for the temptation of adding songs or special effects and reduce it to the level of Anand or Safar. A couple of scenes toward the end of the movie, such as the boy visiting other blind children and a blind worker's workplace and also the final scene where the boy claps at the sound of splashing and birds chirping are sure make your eyes misty.

Many Bollywood players do not realize that Oscar committee members value simplicity of the subject and genuineness and brevity of the movie more than the glitz and glamor. Shwaas is certainly a better nomination than Lagaan, which dealt with a subject that has already been beaten to death. No MPAA member is willingly going to suffer through 4 hours of jingoistic drama and a lot of song and dance.

I look forward to more movies from director Sandeep Sawant in the future.


Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-)


James Hacker MP didn't expect that he would be the next prime minister. Unlike in America, the party is elected in Britain while we, Americans, vote for candidates regardless of their party. Despite the differences, Paul Eddington CBE's performance as minister turned prime minister almost overnight is helped by his senior adviser, Sir Humphrey, played by another knight, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, and veteran actor Derek Fowlds also returns to the scene as well. Now instead of pleasing some people, he has to please the nation rather than his constituency. Now, he has a hard job to do even more difficult than before. Now, he must approve the honors list and work with Her Majesty as well on a regular basis. Hacker is not the hacking type. He is rather than the every man who we like and don't want to dislike and turn into a villain of sorts or a vicious dictator. Now, we see the prime minister's point of view and all the pleasing that must go on as well as handle strikes.


Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.

Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.

All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister.

Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.

I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately.


I didn't read the book "Scarlett" and when I watched this mini series I enjoyed it very much and thought it didn't need to be compared to GWTW. The story may differ from the book, but who cares its a movie. Even in the credits its based on the book, its not the book. The film is clearly under appreciated with the reviews that other people write but can't even spell the main characters names right.

 The acting in Scarlett I thought was superb. Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton were excellent. They took the characters and gave them there touch. Now as far as other people go by, they compare them to the great Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable. They obviously did fantastic, but the leads in this film are completely different people who have there own acting methods and shouldn't be pressured of what people have to say. If you wanted certain actors to do well then you should have directed the film, I'm sure that other actors would not do as well as these with the chemistry and cleverness they brought to these roles. The supporting cast stood out with there grandness, and Jean Smart steals the scenes that shes in with her comedy genius.

 The locations in the film were very beautiful and it was just grand to see Scarlett go to all those places in the film as she causes trouble and other things. Also the scene in which Scarlett talks to her dad's grave it was very dramatic and I thought from then on that there were two GREAT actresses who brought Scarlett O'Hara to life. Not just Vivian Leigh but also Joanne Whalley.

The film and the book may differ, but you must not take to heart that this is a sequel to one of the best films ever made otherwise you will think that this has to be like Gone With the Wind and you will not like this film. But this is an under rated classic that is unlike GWTW, its its own movie. Also keep in mind that "Tomorrow is another day"...


I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.

It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.

There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.

In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.

I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.

The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!


 It's common knowledge and has been said before: No one can ever play Scarlett and Rhett like Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Joanne Whalley Kilmer (no longer Kilmer having been divorced from ex-hubby Val Kilmer) plays her own Scarlett and although this is a sequel and not a re-make (God-forbid!!!) she still cannot rise to the occasion (i.e. her voice sounds evil on several occasions, she's got brown eyes [Scarlett in both novels had green eyes and even Vivien Leigh's eyes were green] and her vocal power was not up to the job either. Scarlett is a Southern Belle; therefore she has an incredible talent for flirting (as she did in SCARLETT the novel and GWTW, of course) and to be a great flirt like Scarlett is, you would most likely need a higher-pitched voice, like Vivien Leigh.

 I suppose I'm comparing Kilmer to Leigh a bit too much but when someone possesses a role so masterfully as Leigh did with Scarlett you simply can't help but to criticize any new prospective Scarletts. Timothy Dalton should have had no accent whatsoever, due to the fact that both Margaret Mitchell's Rhett and Gable in the film had none. His acting has never been truly noteworthy (except, maybe his portrayal of the evil, conniving King Phillip of France in THE LION IN WINTER) and he gives very little (if any) freshness or vitality to his Rhett.

 Standouts in the cast are most notably Tina Kellagher (a born actress with plenty of authenticity in her deliverance) as the tragic victim Mary Boyle. And then of course there's Sean Bean as the cold, calculating and not to mention, almost demonically evil Lord Fenton, Mary's nemesis and Scarlett's eventual violator. One thing I could not forgive the writer for was the fact that Scarlett is raped in this movie (a fact that never occurred in the novel; Lord Fenton is cold and of ill-repute among the Irish in the book but he's nowhere near as heartless as his screen counterpart. Another omission from the novel but readded for the film is the character of Belle Watling, played most horribly by Ann-Margret in a cameo role, which we all could have lived without, seeing as how the book was such a run-away bestseller without requiring any assistance from Ms. Watling.

 For a film by itself, SCARLETT is a very good one but not quite in that lofty of a place in terms of being GONE WITH THE WINDs sequel. Another actress was highly necessary for Scarlett as well as Rhett.


First of all, nothing will ever compare to the original movie, but for gosh sakes, they're not trying to. It is just one persons opinion about what could have happened after Rhett left Scarlett at Tara. I for one thought it was a terrific movie and would like to add it to my GWTW collection. The scenery alone would make me want to watch the movie. Just view this movie as an extension of the original and don't think they are trying to replace Vivian Leigh and Clark Cable and you will enjoy it a lot. They really captured the spoiled selfishness of Scarlett in many of the scenes and you can see from the longing in the looks from Rhett that he is clearly still in love with Scarlett. The fact that you can recognize many of the actors in the movie is another plus even though some of them have only been seen on TV. I always wanted them to have other children after Bonnie Blue died in the movie and this satisfied my need perfectly.

Lore60


I loved the movie. I loved Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whaley. The movie had many different locations in it. I really liked when Ann Hampton realized she could not make Rhett love her. And when Scarlett and Ann where together and Ann apologizes for taking Rhett and Scarlett just told her not to worry she would get him back. It had a great story it told. You just can not compare it to GWTW. It just has so many great scenes. I love both SCARLETT AND GWTW! Of course do not forget to have a hankie handy.


A letter to the guys. I tried guys, I really tried! I tried so hard not to watch this movie. I would leave the room when it was on or jump on the computer when the wife watched it. This is her second favorite movie, the Godfather being first (which I love).

I ended up catching little bits of this movie and finally after maybe a year I was actually sitting down watching it with her. I can't believe I am saying this, but I loved this movie. Dalton plays a great Rhett and has his cockiness down pat. Whalley plays a delightful Scarlett. Full of fire and brimstone and NOTHING is going to stop her.

My favorite scene is when she is overseas in (Ireland?) and the government is going to tear down a peasant's house because they are behind in the rent. Scarlett gets all mad at this and pays the entire debt, thus making a huge name for herself around this small town.

All I'm saying guys is you might want to try this movie... especially if you are a fan of Gone with the Wind. It does take a little bit to get used to the new actors, but I think you will find them refreshing.


Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.


Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrowafter all tomorrow is another day. :)


gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning


When I saw Gone with the wind I thought that there could not be better actors than Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable to play Scarlett and Rhett but then I saw the movie Scarlet. I fell in love for this dramatic story. I love Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler, he's fantastic. This is a movie I could watch a thousand times and it still wouldn't bore me.


I am a huge Gone With the Wind fan, and I read "Scarlett" before it was a miniseries and loved it. This is a sequel of sorts. Like you didn't expect it with that "Frankly dear, I don't give a damn" ending. Timothy Dalton was great as Rhett, though no one will ever replace Clark Gable. Joann Whaley-Kilmer, on the other hand, could give Vivien Leigh a run for her money (though I feel almost guilty even saying that.) Her attitude and presence in the film fits the character to a tee, making you love and hate her at the same time, which is how most feel about Ms. Leigh's portrayal as well. The film does move slowly, mostly because it follows the book so closely and was not released as a feature film. Excellent choice on the producer's part. I think this movie deserves some recognition for the great storyline, the revival of characters that had been gone for almost 50 years, and for being something that even Margaret Mitchell herself could have been proud of.


My God, this was a fantastic film. Every time we watch it takes us to another place of "WOW". Rhett & Scarlett were played brilliantly by Joanne & Timothy. They did a fantastic job revising the roles of our two favourite heros. Everyone! It is a must see..... Dont deprive yourself of this movie. If u loved Gone With The Wind you will love this mini series. Go Rhett!!! Go Scarllett!!!


This miniseries is a reasonable sequel to the original Gone With The Wind. If one views this on its own merit (and not immediately following the original), it comes out pretty good. I am sure that most viewers will question the performances of Scarlett and Rhett, but it seems unlikely that anyone else could have done better. Many of the characters here are new to this storyline, so comparison in those cases (Rhett's mother, Uncle Henry Hamilton, Will Benteen)is not a problem. No one will every be Vivien Leigh or Clark Gable.

The best part of the whole production is the beautiful scenery of springtime Charleston and Ireland. Watch it for that alone. Obviously, this was a high budget TV miniseries. It follows the book for a while, then has a totally new plot when Scarlett goes to Ireland.

The acting is credible if nothing special--kind of the way I feel about Roger Moore following Sean Connery for James Bond.


I, having both read and watched Gone With The Wind, found it very difficult to not compare this movie with the original. Although I thought Scarlett, the novel, was superb, the movie didn't add up. It was a completely different story. Of course, there will never be another Scarlett and Rhett besides Leigh and Gable, but the new actors did a fine job, considering. I loved the way the book and movie wrapped up the story of Gon With the Wind, because after reading it I felt a surge of disappointment because it just stopped and left the readers to wonder what happened. Scarlett finishes the story very well, and Alexandra Ripley did great on the book. I just wish the movie followed the story more, although it is great in itself.


I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible.


Gone with the wind is one of the most popular books ever printed . It is by far the movie of all movies . The romance between Scarlett and Rhett made people dream all over the world and turned the lead actors into cinematographic icons . One can ask , is it really necessary to make a sequel ? And ... there are some big shoes to fill .

Well , there was the book first . 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley is , we have to admit , well-written and fully respecting the world created by Margaret Mitchell . She picks up exactly where we left our heroine previously and gently leads us from Mitchell's heritage into her own fantasy . In the book Scarlett , defeated after Melanie's death and Rhett's leaving , travels to Charleston to reside with her mother-in-law in hope of regaining Rhett's love . Her typical manipulative behavior evokes once again a lot of criticism from Rhett and drives them further apart ... until a certain boat trip that will change everything . Scarlett now carries a secret . The series follows the book quite accurately until the arrival of Scarlett in Ireland . From then of , book and series slowly split ways . The actual end differs , but of course the both have Scarlett and Rhett back together .

The production of the series was announced with a worldwide search for the next Scarlett O'Hara . Many countries made their own television shows featuring young actresses auditioning for the part . Eventually , about twelve girls were chosen to participate in the final screen tests and interviews in Atlanta , Georgia . Unfortunately , the producer found no Scarlett amongst these actresses . Sad for the girls , major publicity for the show ( it was already sold to many television stations worldwide before shooting even had started ). Robert Halmi , the producer who bought the rights to 'Scarlett' , told he discovered the right actress while watching TV , gave her a call and two days later signed the deal . Joanne Whalley-Kilmer ( who starred in'Willow' and 'Scandal' , the latest being the movie Robert Halmi was watching that faithful evening )is not Vivien Leigh , but she certainly is Scarlett ! Her performance is not a copy of Leigh's , she makes the character her own . The major difference between GWTW and 'Scarlett' is the fact the lead character evolves and grows as a person . This is the series prerogative , why copying something that has been done before ? Considering there is a gap of almost seventy years between the first and second storyline , it is natural that both authors emphasize on different aspects of the characters . Whereas Mitchell works around Scarlett dealing with the consequences of the civil war and fighting for Tara , Ripley lets Scarlett face her demons . This to me , is the most interesting aspect of the series , we get to know Scarlett in a different way as she learns that not everything can always go the way she wants . I totally agree with the choice of Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler . He portrays him with charm and irony and is less of a cardboard figure than Clark Gable's performance . The rest of the cast was well chosen . Julie Harris is endearing as Rhett's mother , John Gielgud gives a very amusing performance as grandfather Robillard and Sean Bean is always at his best playing a dirty character , his Lord Fenton makes no exception . Poor choices however with Stephen Collins as Ashley and Ann-Margret's adaption of Belle Watling was a waste of money . Costumes , sets and locations are elaborate and convincing . The newly built Tara set looked exactly the same and it is a moving sequence in the series when the house appears for the first time .

Is there a point in making a sequel ... Well , six hours of romance are to me . One to watch !


My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.

Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.

Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.

She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.

The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.

Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.

In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.

Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, "It's time I became acquainted with my daughter." The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.

After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.

If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after "tomorrow".


This is one of the most cerebral insightful movies I have ever seen. The script language, costumes, scenery, plot, characters, etc. all are supreme. You will not be bored. I have watched intensely or even just listened to this movie while working so many times I have lost count. Scarlett ages gracefully, acquiring wisdom beyond her years in the end. This movie takes you from Tara to Ireland where her family is originally from and you see the results of another civil war played out there, this time between the Irish and English.

This movie depicts the double standards of men at the time--a man is still respected if he has girlfriends and whores, but not a woman. If she is merely seen in a private place with a man society accuses her of impropriety. And of course Scarlett was always thinking outside the box, breaking rules when necessary to create needed change, help people, and/or survive.

Scarlett's beauty definitely is to the bone. Her strength, self-esteem, and wisdom grow as she ages.

I remember her lines when I am confronted with too much on my plate, such as, "tomorrow is another day," and the way she carried herself, her determination and courage, and have learned from her experiences. This is a good movie to show your daughters as it teaches a woman how important it is to have respect for yourself, and that men, especially very handsome ones, can have two sides and may treat a woman differently, depending on how she acts and respects herself. An attractive woman needs to learn what this movie teaches.

This movie is like therapy to me, and it is better than Gone with the Wind. The second part takes place in Ireland and anyone who is of Irish decent will cherish the scenery, people, and Scarlett's character within it.


I am a big Gone With The Wind nut but I was disappointed that both Gone With The Wind the movie and Scarlett the mini series are so different from the books. Gone With The Wind left so many things out in the movie that were in the book and they did the same with Scarlett. Both were good movies, but I really liked both books better. There were so many characters left out of Scarlett, and the ages of some characters didn't seem to match up with the book. The time lines don't match up either. Scarlett realizes she is pregnant on the ship to Ireland in the book, but she realizes it when she is throwing up while in Savahanna. Also Sally is made out to be an ugly monkey like woman in the book and the movie casted Jean Smart to play her, who is obviously not an ugly woman. Over all, Scarlett is a good movie, and it helps anyone who was disappointed in the way Gone With The Wind ended, to see what might have happened if Margaret Mitchell had lived to write a sequel herself.


This is about as good as gone with the wind was.I love this movie I could watch it over and over again.Scarlett always gets what she wants no matter what the cost.She tries real hard to forget Rhett but she just can't do it. She loves him so much. This is a story of real true love.It started in gone with the wind and ended up in this movie.The only real way to end this movie for real true love.Was to have Scarlett and Rhett back together at the end.And thats the way it ended with them back together with their daughter.What more could you ask for. There's not a better ending to this great love story than this.What else can i say about this great movie.


Not your everyday Tom and Jerry short for many reasons. One, there's a voiceover narration by Jerry, which is odd, because Tom and Jerry rarely speak. Two, the two are friends, which was also rare and seldom works as well as the more adversarial shorts do. Third, and most importantly, the cartoon is rarely humorous (by design) and the jokes here are dry chuckles with a little cough and a bubble of blood at the end. Think a Tom and Jerry cartoon directed by Tim Burton. Not wholly successful, but it largely does work. The creepiest ending for an MGM short that I can recall. Not for everyone and proof that these shorts were never intended solely with children as the target audience. Well worth watching. Recommended with the caveats above.


While I agree completely with drvn below about Mary McCormack flopping a milk-bag out on TV, the rest of the show is fantastic! Phil Hartman was great in a professorly way, teaching the celebs the ins and outs. Foley's a nut, but in a good way. You never know what self depricating humor he's going to come up with next. As for the game play, it's entertaining, filled with witty banter, and great for any newbie that may have even a passing an interest in the game. Too bad it isn't on anymore :( I just checked the schedule all the way to August and it doesn't appear to be scheduled for any time in the future. Bad Bravo! You deserve a beating!


It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.

Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.

So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.

Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.

Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.

What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.

Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.

That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.

All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.

It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.

The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.


Inglorious Basterds makes no apologies, asks for no forgiveness, it's a no holds barred assault on the senses. Tarantino doesn't care if he offends, if he steps all over stereotypes and clichés, this is film making at it purest. It's great to see a film maker whose work clearly isn't interfeared with by the powers that be. Tarantino is a master of effortlessly cranking up immense tension and suddenly mixing it with laugh out loud moments; you're not sure if you should be looking away in disgust or rolling around laughing, either way it's a roller coaster and one not to be missed! It's not for everyone and I'm unsure how Germans will take the film, certainly if you're not a fan of Tarantino's style, this may be a little hard to swallow, but never-the-less, it is a film which simply has to be seen. No self respecting film fan should miss this. And the performance of Christoph Waltz... Oscar don't you dare ignore him!!