Russian actress TATIANA SAMOILOVA reminds me so much of the young Audrey Hepburn and the camera in THE CRANES ARE FLYING seems to love her just as much. She is the focal point of a bittersweet war romance against the background of World War II in Moscow.

The film is almost poetic in its gorgeous B&W cinematography which was the main reason for watching the film in the first place, since I had never heard of it and decided to give it a try when it aired on TCM.

It's a very moving love story about a girl's deep love for a man who is suddenly swept away by his role as a soldier drafted in wartime Russia. She's unable to forget the memory of her romantic attachment to him, but inexplicably marries someone else who has forced himself on her, a pianist who soon realizes that she still loves the soldier she hopes to hear from. Their marriage is a troubled one because she can't let go of her remembrance of a happier time with her soldier sweetheart.

By the end of the story, she accepts the idea that he's never going to return and is able to face reality and cope with the situation. There's a very poignant final scene at a train station where arriving soldiers are greeting their loved ones and the tearful girl shares the joy of the returning soldiers by giving some flowers from her bouquet to the joyous families.

The stylish and striking camera-work is what carries the film, as well as the honestly played story.

Tastefully done, but perhaps the English subtitles didn't tell the whole tale because some of the plot elements seemed a bit blurred to me as if they had been glossed over.

Summing up: Easy to see why it won awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Reminded me, in style, of another great Russian film, BALLAD OF A SOLDIER.


This movie won a special award at Cannes for its acting and it's not difficult to see why. (A few spoilers - but for the ending, you'll have to watch the movie!) A simple story - in Moscow on the eve of war between Russia and Germany in WW II Veronika (Tatiana Samoilova) is in love with Boris (Aleksei Batalov) but they have a spat when she learns that he has enlisted in the army. Boris leaves for the front before Veronika can tell him she loves him. Boris is shot but his ultimate fate remains unknown to Veronika or his family. Mark, Boris' cousin, rapes Veronika who feels obligated to marry him. Degraded and demeaned by the cowardly Mark, Veronika clings to the hope that someday Boris will return. Superb camera-work and wonderful set pieces by director Kalatozov. (For anyone interested in film technique another movie by Kalatozov, I AM CUBA, has at least two superb set pieces - one of them a long tracking shot that begins with a funeral procession through the streets of Havana, rises two stories to a cigar factory, tracks though the window and follows the procession down a long, long avenue - all without a cut.) Superb acting, particularly by Samoilova and Vasili Merkuryev (as Boris' uncle) that is made all the more poignant by sheer understatement. A devastatingly romantic movie with a heart-stopping performance by Samoilova. (This movie is frequently linked with the other Russian classic Ballad Of A Soldier.)


The aftermath of World War Two almost resulted in the death of Soviet cinema. In the early years of the 1950s, film production came close to a complete standstill {a mere nine feature-films were released in 1951}, and the work of all filmmakers was closely monitored, and often censored, by the government. Following the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, filmmakers were given greater artistic freedom with their pictures, though many remained reluctant to challenge the heroic, optimistic and propagandistic stance towards warfare that had been prevalent in previous years. It wasn't until 1957 that director Mikhail Kalatozov and writer Viktor Rozov became bold enough to produce what is widely-considered the first post-Stalin Soviet masterpiece, 'Letyat zhuravli / The Cranes are Flying,' one of the finest depictions of war I've seen from any country or time period. Not only was the film lauded for its artistic brilliance in the Soviet Union, but international recognition was soon to follow, and Kalatozov's film was honoured with the Palm d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.

'The Cranes are Flying' is both an invigorating visual feast and an audacious, humanistic portrayal of war. Unlike many Soviet war-themed films of the time, it was less constrained by the archetypal figure of the traditional war-time hero, and more concerned with the futility, brutality and, indeed, the inevitability of conflict. Love, as a cinematic concept, is too-often idealised as a notion that somehow conquers all and endures endless hardship, and yet the reality is substantially less romantic. In the film, two lovers, Veronika (Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), separated by the advent of the WWII {widely known in the Soviet Union as the Great Patriotic War, 1941-1945}, pledge to marry after the war, but tragedy denies the couple their wish. Driven to betrayal by the unending torment and uncertainty of waiting, Veronika agrees to wed Boris' cousin, Mark (Aleksandr Shvorin), a handsome but unworthy youth. The film may conclude with the proud victory of the Soviets, and a patriotic flag-waving parade, but the optimism of this sequence is overwhelmingly eclipsed by the bittersweet tragedy of our young female protagonist, who wanders soullessly through the celebrating crowds.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of 'The Cranes are Flying' is Sergei Urusevsky's inspired and dynamic hand-held cinematography, which realistically and dizzily captures the chaos and confusion of war, not necessarily in the hail of gunfire and the cries of dying comrades {in fact, only one of the film's sequences joins Boris on the Eastern Front}, but from the perspective of the family and friends who are left behind. In one particularly impressive, oft-cited long shot, the camera follows Veronika as she frantically searches for Boris in a crowd of departing recruits and their families. The hand-held camera smoothly follows the girl off a bus, jostles through the crowd alongside her - capturing momentary snippets of loved ones saying farewell to their sons and husbands - before unexpectedly craning above the crowd as Veronika disappears into the dust of a passing squadron of army tanks, a breathtaking movement that offers scope and urgency to the dramatic episode. Urusevsky first acquired his filming experience as a military cameraman during the war, and obviously fell in love with the storytelling possibilities of hand-held photography: "The camera," he once declared, "can express what the actor is unable to portray: his inner sensations. The cameraman must act with the actors."


Unlike the many who have posted here, I'm not movie literate. I stumbled across this movie by accident (channel surfing), and couldn't surf away. This is a truly incredible movie, worthy of all the praise the critics and those on this site have heaped on it. The actors are terrific. Tatiana is beautiful and innocent. Her fiancé Boris is sweet and patriotic. You couldn't help but feel Boris' father's exasperation and sorrow as he upbraids his son for such foolishness as volunteering to serve in the great war.

Others have summarized the movie so well, so I'll just mention a couple of scenes that moved me the most. When Boris' brother reveals to his family that he has broken trust with his brother and "has to marry" Tatiana, Tatiana's twisted mouth shows her revulsion at this betrayal (even though her part in the unfaithfulness might have been through rape). You fear that the rest of the movie might right this wrong by visiting just destruction on Tatiana and the brother, or worse, show Tatiana destroyed by an immoral descent into cigarette smoking decadence. Since this isn't "French existential cinema", the latter doesn't happen. Thankfully!

Another scene that tears at your heart is when the unnamed "musician" soldier who was saved by Boris returns to tell Boris' father of the death of his son. He unwittingly breaks the news to Tatiana. I can't describe the sorrow of this scene... Still,Tatiana finds finds a straw to grab and hope that Boris will yet come home. The musician actually never saw Boris buried, after all.

I won't mention more scenes, but do want to observe that the touches of Soviet political correctness didn't detract at all from the film. Boris' brother is revealed as the piano playing anti-soviet slacker that someone who steals his brother's wife-to-be would have to be. No doubt he gets at least a "tenner" at the conclusion of the film! The ending, when Tatiana finally learns for certain that Boris is dead, still manages to end with cheerfully and full of hope for the future. You don't even want to imagine the tears and catharsis that must have swept through the theater when survivors of that war, with their own losses in mind, first saw this movie.

Incredible. Go see it.


It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.

Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.

The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.

Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.

The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another.

This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.

What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans.

On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces.

When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.

It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.

From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.


Like in a circle the movie leads back to its point of departure, the image of the cranes that are crossing a Muscovite sky. They represent the freedom to realize your life as you wish, in order to aspire the greatest possible fulfilment.

In the beginning Veronica and Boris experience such a promise of happiness, and their eyes follow the path of the cranes in exhilaration. It seems as if they might be able to live according to their dreams.

But Man is not a bird. Life draws up its own rules, from which no human can escape and which we cannot change - not even by making a supreme effort. War breaks out, and without much hesitation Boris signs up for the front in order to fulfil his patriotic duty. He cannot even say good-bye to Veronica, for she arrives late at the assembly point from which the soldiers are sent away. Surrounded by a jubilant crowd all her attempts to attract Boris' attention must inevitably fail.

Boris eventually gets killed in war, without Veronica learning about it for the moment. His brother Mark, a vigorous musician, who obtained the exemption from military service by corruption, is eager to take his place. Veronica initially resists, but in a frightful night of bombing she finally falls victim to his charms. A marriage takes place, which is never accepted by the family.

Soon feelings of guilt seize hold of Veronica and she realizes that Boris' return is the one and only thing she actually longs for. She therefore eases her bad conscience and despair by the self-sacrificing work in a field hospital.

When war finally is over, once again a crowd of enthusiastic people gathers in order to cheer the victorious soldiers. Again Veronica is among them, forcing her way through a wall of bodies. In her hand she is carrying a bunch of flowers, until she finally has to give it away to complete strangers, for one of the homecomers has just dashed her hopes by confirming the sad certainty of Boris' death.

Once again the cranes invade the sky, drawing their wayward lines. But now Veronica is watching them on her own, and the look in her eyes is a different one. She has had to accept the impossibility to live according to preconceived plans, to follow the guidelines of your dreams. For all humans are nothing but helpless puppets hanging on the inscrutable strings of fate.


Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10.


Director Mikhail Kalatozov's film The Cranes are Flying (Letyat zhuravli) is a glorious piece of cinema. From the screenplay by Viktor Rozov, based on his own play, Kalatozov shows us a vision of the heroism of war and the suffering by those left at home. Inundated with countless war movies showing us the frontlines and the carnage, the topic itself becomes tedious and avoidable. However, this Russian gem shows how the tale of hardship can be told in a different way; by telling us, straight from a soldier's mouth how war is hated by all, that they hope those who died did so for a cause that will allow for peace and the end of fighting, we see a new vision of WWII. We have young men volunteering to wage war for peace, to keep their families and loved ones safe at home rather than draftees fighting a battle they don't believe in. With so much hatred towards our current situation in the Middle East, and how people are dying for no reason, against their will, it's nice to see a film that shows just how selfless and heroic these soldiers are, as well as those awaiting their return.

Communist Russia shows how involved all were in the war. While Boris may have volunteered to go to the frontlines, his father is head doctor of a hospital aiding in the mending of soldiers injured and his sister is helping him there as well as his girl Veronika, doing all she can to keep her mind off the fact that no letter has arrived from her love. An entire city comes out to send the boys off in celebration. Even the factory that Boris and his friend Stepan work for send representatives over with gifts of gratitude. Whether this is all a glorified look into Russia at the outset of WWII or not, I don't know. There are no protests or badmouthing of these boys risking their lives for a country, it is all praise and thanks. Some in America could learn a lesson from this because whether you agree with the war at hand or not, protesting and wreaking havoc in its name only sullies what these men and women are sacrificing each and everyday.

The acting is top-notch throughout, but some deserve singling out. I really enjoyed Antonina Bogdanova in a small role as Boris' grandmother. She is the one family member he can trust and her sadness at his leaving is very evident on her face and through her body language. Vasili Merkuryev, as the patriarch Fyodor Ivanovich, brings what is perhaps the best performance. As spoken at the end, about fathers needing to choke back hidden tears, Merkuryev epitomizes those sentiments. He puts on a tough exterior, especially cracking jokes and riding his son hard when he finds out about his volunteering just hours before he must leave. But when Boris exits to go to the assembly station we see the true pain of the man, seated in sorrow at the table. He loves his son dearly and although he may not be able to show it to him, his actions throughout the film express it to the audience. Aleksey Batalov is effective as Boris, a happy-go-lucky young man, and idealist, doing what he believes is right, and Aleksandr Shvorin is good as the villainous Mark, staying home due to his talented piano skills, or maybe just to steal his cousin's love. That love, played by Tatyana Samojlova, really draws the audience in to her grief, dejection, and slim glimmer of hope. The true star of the film, she must go through many emotions on a journey where she does lose her way, needing to steer back on course, hoping that she did so soon enough for Boris' return.

Besides the realism to the story, as well as being unafraid to use tragedy to get the theme across, I also loved the visual style of the film. Sergei Urusevsky's cinematography is amazing, especially when considering the movie was shot in fullscreen. It is one thing to create stunning compositions in a widescreen panorama; it is completely different to do so in a square frame. Right from the beginning we get a beautiful static shot of a winding walkway along water, a bridge in the background at the top, as our two lovers skip their way up the screen and into the distance. There are multiple instances of the camera being behind barriers yet still allowing for the action to be seen, creating unique spatial depth and interest at all times. Sharp angles are utilized, as well as careful blocking to allow for overhead shots and exaggerated juxtapositions of characters in frame together.

The real feats, however, are those instances of the long shot. Used well towards the end to follow Veronika through the mass of returning soldiers, it is magnificent earlier on as she roams through those saying goodbye to their loved ones while she searches for Boris, her own farewell needing to be said. The planning for this shot must have been extensive because while she weaves in and out of people, the camera focuses on couples kisses, people yelling to one another, and more, all purposely in frame at specific moments while the camera moves through. Everyone needed to hit his mark precisely and it leads to a brilliant piece of cinema. It's just one part of an overall masterpiece of tone and style; The Cranes are Flying shows how successful placement and mise en scène can be in showing the audience what it needs in as simple a way as possible. Composition and professionalism from the actors and crew can work wonders, adding something that huge setpieces and special effects can never do.


Fabulous cinematography from Sergei Urusevsky help to make this a stunning piece of work. The opening scenes are as if one is leafing through some master photographer's album and as the story begins to unfold we are swept away with both the events depicted and the beautiful look. All is well shot but there are several whole sequences that are simply breathtaking. Difficult to describe without 'spoiling' but suffice to say one is a very intense scene during an air raid and the lady left behind and her lover's brother are at odds as the sirens whine and the windows shatter. Another superimposes a swirling staircase and a spinning shot of tree tops and even develops into a fantasy sequence. Soviet film making of the highest order.


This is a fantastic film. The acting is some of the best I've seen. Tatyana Samojlova is obviously very beautiful, and she automatically draws you into the film with her believable acting. The The cinematography was extremely ahead of its time. Watching it, I could see parallels of cinematography used today. This is truly a groundbreaking film. Because of the cinematography and acting, the audience can feel the change in tone from beginning to end as the tone in the environment in the movie changes. It's a very touching and powerful piece. My friend told me it was must see, and I definitely agree with her. This is one of those films that you watch and never forget. Everyone should see this intensely moving film. This should be put on everyone's "Movies to See Before ________ (whatever)" list.


Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.


I'm out of words to describe the beauty of "The Cranes are Flying", but I'll try anyway to write about it. It's a powerful and delicate love story that takes its place in the Second World War. It's the classic story of lovers (Boris & Veronika) separated by the war and of what comes between them. The film's images are so gorgeous, that you'll be carried away - the film technique is in perfect unison with the emotion.

There are few scenes that portray directly the war: A bombing - wind, lightnings, explosions - that will have important consequences in the life of the main protagonist, Veronika, who waits for the return of Boris; and there's another scene on the front, where we we will be confronted by a emotional/visual hurricane showing the images played in Boris' mind. Another scene works as the leitmotif of the film and provides its title - the cranes flying in the sky. This image stands as a the symbol for Nature and its seasons and underlines the final message of the film: Not to give up hope and fight for a better future.

Kalatozov is a great director, this film is visually stunning and it also touched me deeply. It is not just pure technique.

Tatyana Samojlova is perfect as Veronika. What more can I say? The film transcends the time it was made - the action takes place during the Second World War. But it could have happened anytime, anywhere. As long there are wars (great or small) the film and its message will remain relevant.


This is a magnificent, and in many ways impressive film. I saw it on TV as a little boy, with my throat almost strangled with tears, and again today on the magnificently restored Criterion DVD.

Cranes is the very essence of the War Weepie. Imagine Umbrellas of Cherbourg with no music and no color, or Waterloo Bridge with no class consciousness.

Tatiana Samoilova, a cross between Vivien Leigh and Bjork, is deeply affecting as a pretty girl whose fiancé enlists and doesn't write or come back.

The fiancé, Boris, dies on the front, and his death scene is indescribably romantic. Very daring too, because so close to "over the top." But that scene will stay with you.

Although the Soviets were so defined by WWII, the movie is quite unspecific, and more powerful for it. The pre-war and post-war scenes have a very 1957 feel. There is no attempt at period detail. The whole film becomes more and more stylized, until the Siberian scenes, which feel like a modern opera set (that is a compliment). The cathartic final scene is milked to its last drop - there again, comparable to Cherbourg. The production feels like a big budget (those staircase scenes must have cost a pretty kopek).

Go for it. Don't expect a bitter socialist pill (although it is, of course, very sad). The Cranes are Flying is an impressive slice of world cinema, quite advanced considering where and when it was made.


If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.

This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.


I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!


This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada".


In my review just submitted I referred to the young actress lead as Katerina when it should have been Veronika. I was so involved with character and the action I guess that I wasn't that concerned with names. Anyway, she and the film are brilliant. As I said, the cinematography and the director's use of montage are worthy of Eisenstein and his cameraman, Tisse'. The production design is top notch. The placement of actors in the foreground, middle ground and background within any given mise en scene is worthy of study. Stunning, memorable camera movement, and an ending that has an emotional punch that leaves Hollywood films far behind. Gee! Heroic self sacrifice instead of walking into the rainbow. Thanks again, John Hart


While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.

Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film.


Here is a movie of adventure, determination, heroism, & bravery. Plus, it's set back in the late 1800s which makes it even more interesting. It's a wonderful, adventurous storyline, and Alyssa Milano is wonderful at playing the wholesome, confident, no-nonsense Fizzy...a great role-model. This is one of my favorite movies. It is a movie to be watched again and again and will inspire you and enrich your life without a doubt. Not only is the storyline excellent, but the movie also has fabulous scenery and music and is wonderfully directed. This movie is as good as gold!


Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.

10/10


First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever!


In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.

1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.

Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.

However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.

It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.

8/10


Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.


Interesting cartoon, included on the DVD of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra". I especially like the way the color was used in the background art--very artistic for Columbia, whose cartoon department generally had a very low budget (and the results looked like it!)

I do wonder, however, how a certain... um, finger gesture... ever got past the censors. Granted, the gesture in question was seen a lot less frequently in 1937 than it is today. You'd think someone besides the animators would have noticed, though--especially since it's seen three times in the scene in question! And based on the context, I suspect that its inclusion was intentional, something the animators slipped in just to see if the censors WOULD notice!


I can't believe I rarely ever see this title mentioned by all you eighties horror freaks and I definitely won't be joining all my fellow reviewers here in saying that 'Bloody Birthday' is awful viewing. On the contrary, I enjoyed it very much and I was pleasantly surprised by the ingeniousness and surprise twists it offers. Don't just refer to this film as being 'another 80's slasher' because the victims here are rather unlikely and so are the killers. We're introduced to three cherubic-looking youngsters who were all born during a solar eclipse. At the moment they were delivered, planet Saturn was blocked by both the sun and the moon and, due to this, the kids are emotionless and seemly without conscience. This really starts to show around their tenth birthday as they go on a merciless killing spree.

Granted, this stuff is incredibility far-fetched and even slightly offensive but, seriously, who cares? Unlike many other horror films from this period, it at least attempts to bring something original and imaginative. For once, the kids' acting is good and the entire film has a creepy atmosphere and grizzly music. The murders sequences are grim and tense, and it's always eerie to see them getting committed by angel-faced kids. I don't know who hired the 3 kids but they did a good job. Especially the girl and the kid with glasses are highly memorable. The bleak images of the heartless trio remind you of classic highlights, such as 'Village of the Damned', 'The Bad Seed' and 'Children of the Damned'. This film is nowhere near as memorable as these milestones but great fun and not one horror lover will regret watching this.

Bloody Birthday was written and directed by Ed Hunt. Not particularly the greatest genius in cinema, but a pleasantly deranged fella who also brought us immensely entertaining cheesefests like 'The Brain' and 'Starship Invasions'. If all this isn't enough to convince you yet, Bloody Birthday has a lot of nudity. And not just any nudity, but a topless dance-act by MTV-VJ Julie Brown. Oh, and keep your eyes open for a completely redundant cameo by Joe Penny, later the star of TV-series 'Jake and the Fatman'. Check it out!!


An absolute classic of 80's scare flix. This one isn't like any other as it pits pint-size, wild-eyed, psychotic youngsters with an urge to kill against all the grown-ups in town. Bud from JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (80's gold again) plays one of the killer-kids and he's paired up with one of the little girls Jake Blues tries to purchase in the BLUES BROTHERS. There is a third blond boy, but he keeps disappearing from the movie for whatever reason. The violence is hilarious at times and also surprisingly gruesome in spots. The demonic gang of smiling kids, though somehow possessed by extra-planetary means, bear little resemblance to the droid-ish Children of the Damned, who never thought to use pistols, crossbows and shovels to kill those pesky adults. Julie Brown (not Downtown Julie Brown-the other one) shows her rack, like three times, as she dances around in her bedroom. This movie is a rarity that I cannot believe I missed growing up in the 80's. This would have been my absolute favorite movie as a kid if I had seen it. Where is the sequel the ending begs for? This movie is just incredible. Seek it out at all costs.


This movie is not the scariest of all time, but it is a great example of a campy eighties horror flick -- low budget, no stars, lots of inventive death scenes, and enough nudity to keep the teenagers in their seats. The premise is interesting and fun and the three evil kids play their parts well. A nice starting point for "Just Say" Julie Brown exposing her talents early in her career. This film won't be seen by many, but for fans of 80's horror it's a must.


Three ten-year-old children born at the same time during a solar eclipse begin to slyly murder anybody that offends them.

While killer kid movies weren't exactly new at the time of this twisted 80's slasher the theme of children as murderers works nicely for this film. Bloody Birthday does deliver some good chills and suspense, while managing to be a competent killer thriller with some strange qualities. It straddles a fine line between cheesy and creepy, but it does remain entertaining throughout with an interesting plot. There's some strong murder scenes, as well as a good bit of nudity to establish this as a solid slasher guilty pleasure.

The cast does a fairly good job. Young stars Elizabeth Hoy and K.C. Martel deliver some menacing performances, while rising star Julie Brown does a striptease before a memorable murder scene. Veteran star Susan Strasberg does well as the teacher and Jose Ferrer has a cameo appearance.

All around this off-beat slasher entry isn't bad, though it's admittedly not flawless, but it is well worth watching for genre fans.

*** out of ****


Sorry about the "extremely clever" summary phrase. I don't know what I was thinking, but I really couldn't help myself.

I've been meaning to see 'Bloody Birthday' for a long time and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise to find a copy of this film by accident and for such a low price. And believe me, I live in a small South American village and these things are very unlikely to happen. It's a real shame that some of these 'gems' from the 80s are now almost completely forgotten. 'Bloody Birthday' is one of those movies that surprisingly ages well enough to remain watchable nowadays. Not a masterpiece for sure, but still entertaining and guess what?... it doesn't really have unintentionally funny scenes. I know it's a shocker if we keep in mind that this is a low budget flick from the early 80s about a group of evil children who kill people. But trust me, the movie manages to remain respectable and watchable for the most part.

In 'Blood Birthday', the story revolves around three children who are born during a a total eclipse. According to astrology, during eclipses, the sun and the moon block Saturn, which controls emotions. As a consequence, the three children who are born that day, eventually become uncaring and evil. Since they don't experience any feelings of remorse whatsoever, these 10-year-old kids gang up against basically everyone who stands in their way, including their own parents and siblings... and kill them! The body count increases day after day and the police authorities believe that there's a psychopath lurking around the place. In the meantime, Debbie, Curtis and Steven, don't hesitate to keep butchering people, since nobody seems to suspect of those sweet angel faces (?)

Like I was saying before, 'Bloody Birthday' is surprisingly NOT funny. I know I said that before, but I'm truly surprised by this. I was expecting some hilariously bad scenes, but the movie proved me wrong. True, it's not exactly what most people would consider a 'serious' horror movie, but if I have to be fair, I'd say that the story is decently executed. One of the most important reasons why one would normally expect laughable situations (like I did), it's because in these kind of movies in which the main villains are children, the young actors tend to be plain awful and they make the whole thing laughable. Let's face it: kids tend to be horrible actors, which is understandable and we can't blame them for that. But to my surprise, the three young actors who played the merciless killers in this film, looked very disturbing and not at all funny. The rest of the actors are also good and if you're a George Clooney fan, you can see his uncle playing a doctor in this movie. Yeah, I know right?... who cares?. Also, Julie Brown, the great actress, singer, comedienne and gay icon, gives a solid performance as the naughty older sister and in case anyone is interested in nudity: she also strips in one of the scenes and she looks great naked. Too bad she didn't have more time on the screen though! Julie is 'absolutely fabulous':P

So basically, this movie is fine if you're in the mood for some modest horror from the 80s. My only objection regarding 'Bloody Birthday' would be the way to justify the children's motives. This is perhaps one of the lowest points of the film. Let's see: if children who were born during an eclipse end up being heartless killers, then how come these three were the only ones who actually murdered people? I'm sure there were other children who had been born the same day... and during other days of total eclipse too, oh well!. Overall, no big deal, it's just a simple observation, that's all. I've seen worse, trust me. Take 'The Children' (1980) for example, in which the precocious killer get their evilness after being turned into zombies by toxic cloud. No, believe me, 'Bloody Birthday' is far more decent and if you enjoy simple slashers, you're going to enjoy this one very much.

So, now you know: you're invited to the children's birthday party... and the hosts will be serving a delicious poisoned cake for you and the rest of the guests. Come on, you can't miss it ;)


This movie is great. 80's sleazy slasher movie about three kids born during an eclipse, so they kill everyone they see. The reason they kill makes practically no sense, but it just adds to the charm of this movie. And dang, these kids are crazy, especially Curtis. If you've seen the movie, you know who I am talking about. That kid's vicous! Although the movie doesn't have much gore, it is entertaining, and for some reason you kind of care about the characters. It also has some nice nudity. Has some decent acting as well, really a decent 80's slasher movie, it's worth a look if you ever get the chance to see it. You'll have nightmares about those darn kids though, I guarantee you!


This agreeably perverse and oddball early 80's teen body count flick may never reach the astonishingly bent pinnacle of the deeply unsettling and criminally underrated murderous moppets movie "Devil Times Five," but it's still an above average killer kid opus nonetheless.

The slim, but serviceable plot centers on a trio of misfit tykes -- two bratty boys and one creepily twinkle-eyed, albeit angelic-looking little girl -- who are all born during a solar eclipse on June 9th, 1970. When the strange antisocial trio, who stick together in a tightly self-contained and exclusive circle, reach ten years of age they suddenly go homicidally bonkers and declare open season on the hapless, unsuspecting local yokels of the heretofore sleepy and peaceful California suburb of Meadowvale. Writer/director Ed Hunt, the usually incompetent unsung hack responsible for such wonderfully wretched clunkers as the delightfully dopey "Starship Invasions," the uproariously inane Jesus Christ vigilante parable (!) "Alien Warrior," and the stunningly silly "The Brain," does a pretty solid and capable job here: the kill scenes are abundant and reasonably brutal (the arrow-through-the-eye gag is especially nasty), there's a sizable smattering of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex, a goodly amount of tension is neatly created and maintained, some nice dollops of dark humor punctuate the arrestingly warped mayhem, and the surprise grim ending manages to be truly jolting.

Moreover, the top-drawer cast further elevates the proceedings to the perfectly watchable and absorbing: Jose Ferror as a small-town doctor, future "Jake and the Fatman" TV series star Joe Penny as an amateur astrologer, "The Prey" 's Lori Lethin as the plucky babysitter heroine, Susan Strasberg as a bitchy school teacher, "American Ninja" 's Michael Dudikoff as a chowderhead jock, and Cyril O'Reilly (the lonely misanthrope vampire in the hauntingly melancholy "Dance of the Damned") as a libidinous teen dude who gets bagged while doing just what you think with some naked hot chick in back of a parked van. Billy Jacoby (who went on to star in such late 80's direct-to-video dross as "Dr. Alien" and "Demonwarp"), Andy Freeman, and especially the eerily adorable Elizabeth Hoy are genuinely creepy and convincing as the terrible troika of chillingly evil and amoral rugrats. And, yes, that's none other than Julie Brown, the brassy comedienne who scored a surprise Top 40 hit with the hilarious novelty tune "The Homecoming Queen's Gotta Gun," as the lovely, vacuous, full-breasted redhead bimbo who does a great lengthy, totally extraneous, yet still sizzling and much-appreciated nude striptease while dancing in her bedroom to a cheesy blaring rock song! All in all, this baby sizes up as a sturdy and satisfying slasher item.


Bloody Birthday plays on the assumed innocence of children and shows them as bloodthirsty monsters. Steven (Andy Freeman), Curtis (Billy Jayne;credited as Billy Jacoby), and Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy), were all born on the same day during an eclipse. Besides sharing a birthday, they also share a love of murder (and they're not picky about who they kill either). Young Billy, Elizabeth, and Andy play the parts of these emotionless monsters quite well but they know when to put on the charm too. But they can't go on fooling everyone. This is an overall good horror flick, its not too unrealistic, there are a few good moments of suspense and the kids portrayed the roles well, (the grown-ups are pretty hammy though). I'd say its well worth seeing, (I own a copy myself).


Story about three eclipse (maybe even Indigo, ha) children beginning their love for murder. Oh, and the people who are "hot" on their trail.

Bloody Birthday, a pretty mediocre title for the film, was a nice lil surprise. I was in no way expecting a film that dealt with blood-thirsty psychopath kids. And I may say it's also one of the best flicks I've seen with kids as the villains. By the end of the movie I seriously wanted these kids to die in horrible fashion.

It's a really solid 80s horror flick, but how these kids are getting away with all this mayhem and murder is just something that you can't not think about. Even the slightest bit of investigation would easily uncover these lil sh!ts as the murderers. But there seems to be only a couple police in town, well by the end, only one, and he seemed like a dimwit, so I suppose they could have gotten away with it. Haha, yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet-pilot.

Nevertheless, this movie delivered some evilass kids who were more than entertaining, a lot of premarital sex and a decent amount of boobage. No kiddin! If you're put off by the less than stellar title, dash it from your mind and give this flick a shot. It's a very recommendable and underrated 80s horror flick.


Three children are born during a solar eclipse and ten years later this has somehow caused them to grow up without consciences. As their simultaneous tenth birthday celebrations approach, they become cunning and calculating cold-blooded murderers. Nice-girl local teen Joyce Russel (Lori Lethin) finds herself confronting these little terrors when most others are falling for their angelic demeanors.

Hearkening back to films like "The Bad Seed" and "Village of the Damned", this films' premise of evil children may not be wholly original but it's still pretty disturbing. All three of the child actors - Elizabeth Hoy, Billy Jacoby, and Andy Freeman - are chillingly convincing. Director Ed Hunt and his co-writer Barry Pearson maintain the unpleasant yet compelling mood for the duration of the film; they go so far as to have the little girl charge admission for an unwilling peep show involving her older sister (future stand-up comedienne and MTV personality Julie Brown, whose striptease is a real eyeful).

Name actors Susan Strasberg, as an icy teacher, and Jose Ferrer, with barely any screen time as a doctor, add to the proceedings with their presence, while K.C. Martel, one of the youngsters from the original "The Amityville Horror", is very likable as Joyces' kid brother. Other familiar faces like Ellen Geer, B-movie he-man Michael Dudikoff, Cyril O'Reilly ("Porky's", "Dance of the Damned"), Joe Penny ('Jake and the Fatman'), and William Boyett ("The Hidden") can be seen as well.

Touching upon such parental fears as children playing with guns that they've discovered and being locked inside old refrigerators, "Bloody Birthday" is a little more than just a slasher variation with kids as antagonists. Aided and abetted by Arlon Obers' music score, this film sticks in the memory more than some of its brethren, without lots of gore to fall back on (although that arrow through the eye gag works quite well).

Bleak, nasty, and downbeat, "Bloody Birthday" is worth a look for the curious.

7/10


Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.

Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless

DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework" (which features nudity)

My Grade: B-


I thought I was going to watch another Friday The 13th or a Halloween rip off, But I was surprised, It's about 3 psycho kids who kill, There's not too many movies like that, I can think of Mikey, Children Of The Corn and a few others, It's not the greatest horror movie but it's a least worth a rent.


Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree."Bloody Birthday" is a typical slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no gore or scares in "Bloody Birthday",but the film is mildly entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's slasher movies give this one a look.


I know little or nothing about astronomy, but nevertheless; I was, at first, a little sceptical about the plot of this movie. It follows three children that were all born during a solar eclipse and so have no emotion, and thus (naturally) become ruthless serial killers. The plot does sound ridiculous at first, but once you realise that a solar eclipse blocks out Saturn and, as you know, Saturn is the emotion planet, it all falls into place; makes complete sense and it's then that you know you aren't simply watching another silly 80's slasher with a pea brain plot. Thank god for that! Seriously, though, Bloody Birthday is based on a ridiculous premise, but it more than makes up for that with it's originality. Having a bunch of kids going round slaughtering people may not be the most ingenious masterstroke ever seen in cinema, but when given the choice between this and another dull Friday the 13th clone - I know what I'd choose.

Also helping the film out of the hole that some people would think it's silly plot dug it into is the fact that it's extremely entertaining. Many slashers become formulaic far too quickly and the audience ends up watching simply to see some gore. This film, however, keeps itself going with some great creepy performances from the kids (which harks back to creepy kid classics such as Village of the Damned), a constant stream of sick humour and a small, but impressive for the type of film, dose of suspense and tension. One thing that I liked a lot about this movie was the vast array of weaponry. There's nothing worse than a slasher where the killer uses the same weapon over and over again (cough Halloween cough), but that's not the case here as Bloody Birthday finds room for everything from skipping ropes to bow and arrows. There wasn't any room for a chainsaw, which is a huge shame, but I suppose not every film can have a chainsaw in it.


Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters.

And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.

The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance.

If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately.


If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.

If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.


Thirst

I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.

Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.

The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.

For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.

But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9/10


I won't bore you with any synopsis, chances are you already know them. And hopefully you are already familiar with Park Chan-Wook's work.

I STRONGLY disagree with some of the other commentators in saying that "Park has not moved on from the vengeance trilogy blah blah blah." Because you know what? He HAS!!! The vengeance trilogy were different from each other in style to begin with, how can you even compare the sombreness and subtlety of "Sympathy For Mr Vengeance" with the frantic and extravagance of "Oldboy"? Park Chan-Wook has incredible style, but his movies don't all share the SAME style! That has been true and remains true with the release of "Thirst".

"Thirst" is an incredible picture, it literally has EVERYTHING you want in a movie. Jaw-dropping violence, tasteful gore, great humour, incredible suspense and even very realistic sex scenes. The story is so crazy that at no point can you guess what will happen next. I'm so happy to say that Park is back in top form with this fantastic dark-comic-vampire-love-story. Watch it as soon as you can!


From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year.


The vampire "craze" has, in my opinion, actually proved its worthiness of such infamous categorization. There were many sub-genre films last year from a multitude of countries. I've reviewed many and have a few more to discuss. Forgive my indulgence, but since I've recognized the trend as a phenomenon (which it is and, coincidentally, features my favorite horror staple). I'm going to now move outside of North America for a bit and introduce you to hopefully meaning films that you didn't see as of now.

Of the many effects of Twilight is the creation of "guy" and "girl" vampire movies. I hate this sexist categorization, which has the effect of polarizing an entire generation of fans into "sides". I think men are prone to hate Stephenie Meyer's work (and its offspring) to some degree because they feel some sense of betrayal that an archetype which was always theirs is now liberated. Women may be unlikely to enjoy future "neutral" pics since they grew up with ironclad expectations that were enforced four times. We need more directors to create vampire films which either gender is capable of enjoying (unequally) if vampires are going to survive the craze and remain relevant. Cue: Thirst This Korean film was directed by Park Chan-Wook of Oldboy fame. There are two ways to dissect it. Either it straddles between gender expectations and is universally marginally enjoyable, or it is a floundering mess that doesn't decide which target audience it prefers and should therefore be viewed by no one. Don't let me convince you that the film has no inclinations. Its director is a man whose fame is story-driven action films. Its protagonist is male and has a passive-aggressive interest in his lover (more on this later). Still, his desire for a woman he has known both before and after mortal life is not contrived, and his attention is returned. There is a male slant to this picture, yet it is not so one-sided that women could not enjoy it. The same cannot be said of Daybreakers or New Moon.

The plot follows an Emile Zola novel called Thérèse Raquin, which I have not read. According to Wikipedia, the novel is about an affair that develops between a married woman and a single man. He kills her husband during a fishing trip and begins dating her. The two of them are incapable of having sex because they picture the dead man's body between them. They are thus driven to insanity, but care for the woman's ailing mother. At the novel's conclusion, they try to kill each other, discover each other's plans, and commit suicide.

Now, transcribe this nearly 150 year old French novel into modern South Korea and you've got Thirst. Chan-Wook doesn't embellish the story enough to elevate this to must-see. He often ignores many of his own ideas in favor of following his inspiration. I think the most memorable parts are when his scruples are unhinged by narrative. His use of the mother-in-law as the foil for their bad romance is just perfect. See it.

The protagonist is originally a devout Christian who becomes a vampire after a faulty blood transfusion following his volunteering for a new medicine. He thus becomes the god he once was smitten with. People flock to him and view him as a grand healer. OK. That's really cool and could have provided a great basis for his relationship. Yet this idea is given little idea screen time as he changes into a realistic Christ figure who tries to maintain his virtue even though his lifestyle demands that he relinquish it. Instead of confronting the delusional people, he instead sips blood out of comatose hospital patients.

Let's continue with the Christian allusion. The woman tricks the vampire man into killing her husband. Her overprotective mother-in-law suffers a stroke and eventually warns friends of the family of her daughter-in-law's treachery (finger waggles). The man kills her but resurrects her. The two of them invite former friends over and the woman begins mercilessly harassing the humans. The man says enough is enough and decides to drive to a beach and forces her into waiting for sunrise with him. They both die, but he atones for her crimes (and his own but the film portrays her evil more prominently).

The woman character is a caricature, and her profession offers an explanation for her behavior. She is a housewife with no education, while the man is a priest whose mortal life was restrictive. Vampirism magnifies their characteristics. She becomes a monster like one would expect of someone without knowledge. He becomes a demigod with a spirit. His life is how atheists view themselves and her life is how religious people view those without divine intervention.


No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being "naughty" exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.

If you have seen Wook's previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ...


Now that I have seen it, it was NOT what I was expecting, at least not until the very END. I read some of the other reviews before picking up a used copy of this from Amazon and was glad I did. Having been first introduced to Park's work via Oldboy, I was curious to how he'd treat the genre and was rather pleased at the clever manner in which he executed it. I think Park has matured in terms of presentation because while Oldboy and some of his other work has very nice and deliberate camera work, he has some nice innovations in Bakjwi that I had not seen in other vamp movies. For example the scene where Father Hyeon is realizing the "beast" growing within him as he gives his shoes to the always barefoot Tae-ju and he is able to SEE the blood pumping through Tae-ju's skin and his eye's widen in blood-lust for it. That was a nice effect. I was also happy that Park did not CG the crap out of the movie and the is in fact very little CG at all. I came away from Bakjwi being totally set up to think one thing was going to happen and get taken for a ride in true Park fashion. Additionally, I liked that Park played with a little symbolism and reversal whereas we don't usually get this is Asia cinema. During the beginning of the movie we see the plot develop slowly and get to know the characters and you feel like an invisible observer to the thing that are transpiring. Park treats you a little like Ghost of Christmas future coming to show you, albeit a bit boringly, what life is like outside your world. Ah, but then we start to feel a little kinship with the befallen Father and his burgeoning lust for Tae-ju and conflict with duty as a priest. We almost start to root for them even until Park not so nicely slaps us back into reality and we really see that in the end Bakjwi is a movie about moral dilemma and right and wrong. It won't spoil it if I tell you to watch Bakjwi from the mindset of a priest and I think you'll come away from it with what Park wants you to come away with. Don't expect Oldboy and stylization because that's not what you'll get here. A very interesting take on the genre indeed. Those who missed the MANY literary elements and religious allusions watched some other movie, not Bakjwi. After Bakjwi, watch Let The Right One IN, it's also not what you'll expect either.


After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.

The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.

The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.

The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.

This is just a great film.


Korean cinema has the ability to turn genres on its head, and the latest by the celebrated director Chan-wook Park is a tale of a good pious priest who becomes a vampire. Add a temptress leading him astray and a cast of eccentrics and you have a wonderful recipe.

Directed in part in a style similar to the "Sympathy" trilogy it's as sumptuous as it is dark. Steering clear of cliché it does offer some new tricks in the overdone vampire genre. Its an existential movie trying to capture the moral conundrum of how exactly a person has to choose to live with their conditions rather than revel in the blood lust. However, the film doesn't take itself too seriously and there is boundless humour throughout.

Our leads play their roles to perfection, playing with our emotions and revelling in the dark humour. There are moments of reflection on the whole moral conundrums involved in the film but its never preachy. Some might find it overlong and it can lull at points but it's worth giving it a chance to the end.

If you like left field films then there are fewer better than this one of late. Dark and engrossing, it will pull in a crowd. One I'd recommend you give a try.


The great thing about Thirst, Chanwook Park's latest film, is that it's the anti-Twilight. Some of you may take that as a minus, but in reality it's a big plus. Park takes the method of vampirism seriously, and as well the torrid love story between Sang-hyeon and Tae-Joo. We see the conflicts of both of the characters- Sang-hyeon being a priest who undergoes a medical experiment that, unbeknownst to him, turns him into a sickly but true-blue vampire, and Tae-Joo with her mother and "idiot" brother, the latter is killed by Sang- as in a very strong melodrama. There's nothing terribly weepy or insipid with the story and characters at any point, and the implications put forth from religion early on (Sang, for example, is seen as a healer of sorts since he rose from the dead thanks to his vampirism, even as he just can't be that and knows it) on top of those about good vs evil, push it up into another plane cinematically.

That Thirst also rises up to the awesome standard of artistry that Park has displayed with Oldboy, Lady Vengeance and the underrated I'm a Cyborg but That's OK, should be taken as a given. Thirst is a film with a juicy narrative and bizarre suburban characters, and is shot and edited with an eye for a mood that is part satiric, part romantic/erotic, part dramatic and lastly fantastical. And it doesn't always treat vampirsim as something of a simple horror movie set-up (though as a horror movie Park has more than his share of scary scenes). It's more akin to the movie Near Dark which never mentioned the word vampire but let you know it was, and treated it with sincerity and a kind of lucid track of attention, and that the disease itself and its effect on a person's existence is perhaps scarier than the killings or bloodshed. Once you see one vampire jump up really high or heal its wounds, you've seen em' all.

Thirst also has a wicked sense of humor, much like Oldboy, only here with a bite (pun intended) meant to emphasize bizarre physical states of being. An example of this can be found with the Priest's predilection of sucking off of blood from people in comas by taking their blood tube and suckling on it on the floor. Or the manner in which Tae-Joo holds on to one scrap of humanity by keeping her mother alive, even as she's had something like a stroke and can only blink her eyes and tap one finger as a means of reacting to the blood-suckers who've brought pain and horror to her home. But these moments are like icing on the cake to make it a complete experience. What makes Thirst last in the mind is how elements come together, of drama and existential pains, of a Bunuelian-surreal sense of Catholicism (I especially loved the dynamic between Sang-hyeon and the other priest who gives his arm up for blood-sucking but really wants to be a vampire too), and of the erotic: the scenes where the priest finally gives in to Tae-Joo are incredible in their pace and length of shots and how real it gets. Not in a pornographic manner, but in the sense of these characters' release and escape, which doesn't last long over the scope of the story.

If it's not as great as Oldboy, it's not something to carp about. Not all films Chanwook Park directs will reach the stature of his masterpiece (and, at the least, he'll always be known as the man who directed that movie). But Thrist is an excellent addition to his oeuvre, and to the serious streak of vampire movies in general. The film-making is crisp and exciting and even dangerous (and what a white room of 'daylight' the characters live in!), the humor is dark and hilarious, the acting is intense and moody- especially from subtle strokes from Song Kang-ho and the quirky evil and surprising vulnerability from Kim OK-vin, and the ending, when it does finally get there, is one of those truly superb vampire-movie endings you'll be talking about for years, in a good way. In a battle between Thirst and Twilight, Thirst takes the knock-out in the first round. Between Let the Right One In or Near Dark, it's tougher to call. 9.5/10


Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.

Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.

Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.

Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.

Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.

See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.


'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history.

Trusting the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent, asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half.

'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films in terms of in-your-face violence.

All in all, be warned that this is neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors.


Of the Korean movies I've seen, only three had really stuck with me. The first is the excellent horror A Tale of Two Sisters. The second and third - and now fourth too - have all been Park Chan Wook's movies, namely Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance), and now Thirst.

Park kinda reminds me of Quentin Tarantino with his irreverence towards convention. All his movies are shocking, but not in a gratuitous sense. It's more like he shows us what we don't expect to see - typically situations that go radically against society's morals, like incest or a libidinous, blood-sucking, yet devout priest. He's also quite artistically-inclined with regards to cinematography, and his movies are among the more gorgeous that I've seen.

Thirst is all that - being about said priest and the repressed, conscience-less woman he falls for - and more. It's horror, drama, and even comedy, as Park disarms his audience with many inappropriate yet humorous situations. As such, this might be his best work for me yet, since his other two movies that I've seen were lacking the humor element that would've made them more palatable for repeat viewings.


A beloved and devoted priest from a small town volunteers for a medical experiment which fails and turns him into a vampire.

Physical and psychological changes lead to his affair with a wife of his childhood friend who is repressed and tired of her mundane life.

The one-time priest falls deeper in despair and depravity. As things turns for worse, he struggles to maintain whats left of his humanity...

The vampire movie should have really been extinct now thanks to the poor efforts of the Twilight and Underworld franchises, but the director injects new blood into the story of the vampire, by putting simple things into perspective.

These vampires have reflections, and no fangs, but still feed and die the same. Making the main protagonist a priest really opens up a can of worms for questioning ones acts. The priest primarily feeds to make himself better, but when he meets his friends unfulfilled wife, carnal instincts set in.

What makes this film intensely erotic is that when the couple consent for the first time, they are experiencing something they have never before, forbidden passion, which makes the scenario all that more sensual.

Chan-Wook adds some much needed humour into the film, but this is only realised in the final third of the movie. We see the daughter lift her mother in the chair in front of everyone, and when she realises her own strength, just puts the chair down and carry on. Hilarious.

and the final act wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, or even the three Stooges as the couple fight for survival/death respectively.

CGI is subtle and fantastic, and the scenes with them jumping from building to building is so graceful, you could be watching ballet.

The vampire genre feels fresh and vibrant after this, but more importantly, has the eroticism and intensity that most vampire films are missing these days. It's violent, but from the director in question, i wouldn't expect anything different.

A really interesting story, with fantastic characters and beautiful cinematography.


There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the same time.

You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire, decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral training.

The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too.

--PolarisDiB


The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/

And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.


I'm the first to recognize that Chan-wook Park's Thirst is exceptionally well made, but spending over two hours with Tae-joo(OK-vin Kim)is enough for anyone to tolerate for such a length of time. Sang-hyeon(Kang-ho Song)is a priest desiring to volunteer for experimental studies on those willing to subject themselves to rigorous injections concerning a specific virus which kills infectiously. Instead of legitimately dying, Hyeon becomes a vampire, always yearning for the sustenance blood gives for him to fight off an infectious disease which returns causing the symptoms which flat-lined him to begin with(..bumps/sores, and the body vomits blood). Sunlight, as is known in the vampire genre, causes torturous death if exposed to Hyeon for a length of time. Hyeon falls in lust with Tae-joo, the wife of sickly childhood friend Kang-woo(Ha-kyun Shin). Tae-joo was taken in by Mrs. Ra(Hae-sook Kim), regarded as a puppy, and practically used as a domestic animal to be ordered around. Ta-joo is miserable in this situation and begins a torrid affair she instigates with Hyeon, soon manipulating him into perhaps killing Kang-woo by having him believe she's a victim of abuse. Renouncing his priesthood, Hyeon dives headlong into the relationship with Tae-joo, soon a willing participant in killing Kang-woo. This incident, which Tae-woo contributed to(..using a boat, in the middle of a lake, both proceeded to burying him underwater, Tae-woo keeping him Kang-woo from re-surfacing as he attempted to re-enter)will haunt both, as circumstances arise with Kang-woo "missing"(Hyeon got rid of him, where police would not find his corpse). Soon Mrs Ra suffers a stroke(..though, one finger and the ability to blink her eyes contribute mightily as the story progresses, showing that she more aware than they are led to believe), and Hyeon gives Tae-joo a special birthday gift..vampirism. In doing so, Hyeon has created a monster. Tae-joo admits(..though a slip of the tongue)that, in fact, Kang-woo never hurt her, and as she thirsts for blood it is soon realized that killing for a supply doesn't bother her morally or psychologically. Tae-joo becomes such a hand full, Hyeon has to take desperate measures if he is to stop such a menace to society, himself included.

I will say that Thirst is one of the best horror films I've seen regarding 2009. It's a methodical approach Park takes and we are led down a dark road with Hyeon and Tae-joo, as they commit terrible deeds with nothing positive ever to come from their unholy union. Innocent people die because of Hyeon's love(..what once was lust shifts into an obsessive love by the end)for Tae-joo, and it will cease to end if he doesn't make a painful choice. We see inside their heads, their souls, and it isn't always pretty. 2 hours with them can be quite exhausting..but, credit to the director for pulling no punches in regards to devious behavior and how the powers of vampirism can be given to the wrong people. Hyeon, seen as a rather pleasant soul at the opening, accepts "hell" for Tae-joo so one could look at Thirst as a unique love story, but not exactly a healthy one.

In regards to the violence, while Park does have a tendency to pull away from extremely graphic details, there's enough sadism involved to perhaps turn the stomach a bit. At the very least, the way the violence is carried out may be certain to leave a lasting impact. The sexual situations between Hyeon and Tae-joo can be pretty heated and erotic, while also sordid and morally reprehensible. The movie, I think, is still quite a complex examination of the lengths one will go to remain attached to an object of affection(lust).


We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.

This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. "Thirst" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.

Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate