i hate vampire movies. with that said, this one was very interesting to me. i do want to point out one thing tho. "bakjwi" literally means bat in korean and we all know that in many classic vampire stories, you see count Dracula or vampires turning into a bat and fly away or wuheva. We also know that bats are mammals that can fly thus many categorizes them to be "exceptional." As I watched the film, I realized that the theme of bat is deeply embedded in this movie more than just to make the bat-vampire connection.

Duality of human nature = if you ever read aesop's fables, there is this one fable where mammals and birds are fighting and a bat just can't seem to take a side and it tries to play both sides to his advantage. Mammals and birds find out what this bat has been doing and banish the bat out of their lands at the end of the story.

the two contradicting sides of human nature are constantly at battle throughout the film ex. sang-hyun's blind priest friend, sang-hyun's effort to quench thirst and his sexual desire, tae-ju playing both sides, her ordinary boring life vs. her thrill seeking vampire adventure, etc (won't ruin too much, u have to watch the film) and this theme is beautifully presented on a plate with delicious sides of romance, sex, violence, religion, dark-comedy,tragedy, vengeance, you name it!

i feel like many would find this movie boring and too long, but this film is very fresh and new, something that i haven't seen b4 yet. I wouldn't say this is CW Park's best work, but it is mos. def. the strangest to comprehend yet darkly intriguing!


The definition of a vampire is an inhumane corpse supposed to leave its grave at night to drink the blood of the living. Bakjwi nearly nails this concept on the head minus the cliché of pointy fangs and neck biting. Being an R rated movie, I knew this was actually going to pertain to vampires actually being vampires. Which means that the characters in the movie are going to do what vampires actually do without restraint and rightfully lack any glamorous moments in comparison to Twilight. Having viewed Chan-wook Park's preceding Oldboy, I had very high expectations of Bakjwi.

I anticipated some awkward plot sequences with our anti-hero, known as Priest Sang-hyeon, and was very impressed by his performance as a holy-man who is forced into this quandary of being humane and obeying his thirst as a vampire. (SPOILER) After the initial premise of him surviving the defective blood transfusion, he starts to crave blood and discovers his super strength and his flying ability. The screen shots do his transition phase without overbearing on exposition. He starts drinking the blood of the dying and those who wish to be euthanized for moral reasons. The oft tragic and dysfunctional love affair the priest has with the manipulative Tae-joo is very riveting as they are played by The Host's Kanh-ho Song and actress OK-vin Kim. The special effects are properly placed in the backdrop and while it doesn't offer anything new in the ways of stunts and CGI, it didn't impose itself into the plot driven and character developed premise. The story and the pivotal plot points are very perverse and grotesque yet very original in its own Korean style.

There aren't many negatives I can say about Bakjwi. Sometimes I ask myself if the priests transition phase could have showed more of the priest having an emotional crisis with his transformation, but then again this would have made the movie 3 hours long. The movie was long to begin with. On the same token, vampires really don't have much in the way of expressing emotions to begin with. As mentioned before, this movie is very tragic, so don't expect anything hopeful while watching this.

Overall, Bakjwi is delightfully dark, morbid and original. I strongly recommend this movie for serious viewers who are past the teenage phase of Twilight. This is definitely the Korean answer to the Swedish Let The Right One In, which is also a good movie.


They say that it is always better in horror movies to leave things to the imagination of the viewer- to hide certain details from the audience in order to tickle their sense of imagination, dip into their fears and let that give birth to their darkest thoughts.

That was not the case when I watched Bakjwi, under the American title Thirst. Now playing at select theaters near you. Seems like the film makers did not want to spare you any details. There WILL be blood in this film and you WILL try to look away.

For rest of review please visit http://without-terebi.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirst-aka-bakjwi.html Thanks and hope you enjoyed reading above.


Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot "Thirst" - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals.

It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.

I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film.


Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama  yes, that is a lot of adjectives  inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.

Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com


I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:

how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.

the very strong and well acted love scenes.

the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.

Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.

the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.

I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film.

I recommend it.


The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.

Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.

The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.

Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully).


(This has been edited for space)

Chan-wook Park's new film is a complex film that is not easy to classify. Nominally a horror movie, the central character is a vampire, the film actually has elements of comedy, theology, melodrama, cultural invasion (and its analog of viral invasion of a body), romance and few other things as well. It's a film that has almost too much on its mind. The film takes its own matters and mixes them with classic European literature, in this case Emile Zola's "Thérèse Raquin". It's an odd mix that doesn't always gel, but none the less has an incredible power. Here it is almost 24 hours since I saw the film at Lincoln Center (with a post film discussion by the director) and I find my cage is increasingly rattled. Its not so much what happens is bothersome, its more that its wide reaching story and its themes ring a lot of bells in retrospect.

The plot of the film has a will loved priest deciding that the best way to help mankind is to volunteer for a medical experiment to find a cure for a terrible disease. Infected with the disease he eventually succumbs and dies, but because of a transfusion of vampiric blood (its not explained) he actually survives. Hailed as a miracle worker the priest returns to the hospital where he had been ministering to the sick. Unfortunately all is not well. The priest finds that he needs blood to survive. He also finds that he has all of the typical problems of a vampire, and its no not possible for him to go out during the day. Things become even more complicated when he becomes reacquainted with a childhood friend and his family. The priest, some of his animal passions awakened becomes taken with the wife of his friend. From there it all goes sideways.

An ever changing film, this is a story that spins through a variety of genres as it tells the very human story of a man who finds that his life has been radically altered by a chance event and finds that he is no longer who he thought he was. It's a film that you have to stay with to the end because the film is forever evolving into something else. Its also a film that has a great deal on its mind and the themes its playing with are constantly being explored in a variety of ways

The film has enough going on that one could, and people probably will, write books discussing the film.

The two of the strongest parts of the film are its vampiric elements and its romance The vampire part of the tale is brilliant. There is something about how it lays out the ground rules and the nature of the "affliction" that makes such perfect sense that it kind of pushes the old vampire ideas aside. Sitting in the theater last night I found myself amazed at how impressed how well it worked. I think the fact that it played more or less straight is what is so earth shaking. Here is a vampire who just wants to have a normal life. It's contrasted with what happens later, it makes clear that living an existence of hunting humans really isn't going to work. Its not the dark world of Twilight or Lost Boys, rather its something else. I personally think that the film changes the playing field from a hip cool idea or dream into something more real and tangible. (The sequence where the powers kick in is just way cool) The romance is also wonderfully handled. Sure the sex scenes are steamy and well done, but it's the other stuff, the looks, the talk, the gestures outside of the sex that makes this special. I love the looks, the quiet stares as the forbidden couple look at each other hungering for each other and unable to act, the disappointment and heartbreak of betrayal both real and suspected, and the mad passion of possible consummation. This is one of the great screen romances of all time. It perfectly captures the feeling and emotion of deep passionate love (and lust). If you've ever loved deeply I'm guessing you'll find some part of your hear on screen, I know I did. The statement "I just wanted to spend eternity with you" has a sad poignancy to it. It's both a statement of what was the intention as well as the depth of emotion. The tragic romance will break your heart.

I won't lie to you and say that the film is perfect and great. Its not, as good as the pieces are and almost all of them are great (especially the actors who I have unjustly failed to hail as amazing) the whole doesn't always come together. The various genres, thematic elements and tones occasionally grate against each other. Frequently I was wondering where the film was going. I hung in there even though the film seemed to be wandering about aimlessly.

I liked the film a great deal. I loved the pieces more than the film as a whole. Its been pinging around in my head since I saw it, and I'm guessing that it will do so for several days more. Like or love is irrelevant since this is a film that really should be seen since it has so much going on that it will provide you with enough material to think and talk about for days afterward. One of the meatiest and most filling films of the year.


SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.

I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with "Oldboy" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.

The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, "sang" means "blood" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in "Badlands", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.

Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.

Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.

The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.

All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time.


This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners.


A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class. Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those interested in vastly different cultures.


The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.


This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!


It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended!


This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?

Yes.

And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable.

The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?

A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.

And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.

The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.

Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)

The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.

Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night.

And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train."


I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study).

It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).

Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:

1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process.

2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .

3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.

4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.

5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).

6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.

These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections.


Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique.

Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.

But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable.

The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing.

Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics.

All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience!

-9/10


Well, this is about as good as they come. There are arguments about whether Hitchcock was only a "master of commercial suspense" or maybe a "compulsive technician" -- or was he really "deep." Nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean, but it's legitimate to ask if, at his best, he could not have been all three things at once.

In this one he seems to be about at his peak. Hardly anything in it is accidental. It abounds with doubt, ambiguity, and wit. And the story is engrossing, Patricia Highsmith apparently having complexes similar to Hitchcock's own.

I'm sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so I won't bother going into it. I'll just point out five on screen incidents that Hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for.

Bruno Antony (Walker) has followed Miriam (Laura Miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. She's noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it.

1. Laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through The Tunnel of Love and then to an island in the center of the lake. Walker is right behind them, smiling, in his boat -- Pluto. "Pluto." It's not an allusion to the Walt Disney cartoon character. It's a reference to Pluto, also called Hades, a god of the underworld in Greek and Roman mythology. This tiny touch can't be an accident. And the "underworld" that Walker represents is not just a literal hell, but the underworld of the human mind. I hate to say he's a Jungian "shadow" but that's what he is. (Did Carl Jung see this movie? He was alive at the time of its release -- but probably not.) 2. Now, this is a deadly serious sequence, right? Walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn't even know. Imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. A night-time stalking through a crowded carnival, stealing from shadow to shadow, the killer peering from behind the canvas walls, and so forth. What does Hitchcock show us? When Walker first comes through the gates, concentrating on his victim, a little boy in a cowboy suit, holding a balloon, runs up and shouts, "Bang! Bang! You're dead!" Walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. And when the kid starts to walk away, Walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it, then continues his pursuit without another glance. That's one way Hitchcock treats impending doom.

3. The famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses, which has been aped innumerable times.

4. Miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet, sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. One of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn't reach the bell at the top. Under Miriam's delighted and admiring gaze, Walker smiles and rubs his hands together, then picks up the mallet, slams it down, and the puck bangs against the bell. She's thrilled. He puts the mallet down, looks at her, grins, and WAGGLES HIS EYEBROWS at her like a ten-year-old showoff! 5. After the discovery of Miriam's body, while whistles blow and people shout, Walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. Walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection, gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. A macabre joke.

These incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen-minutes of the carnival visit. (Robert Walker's performance is exceptional throughout.) It's essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (Cf: "Ride the Pink Horse") But the menace of the scene is undercut by Hitchcock's insistence on irony and distance. None of the familiar noir techniques are employed. There's nothing really "creepy" about it. And the murder itself is hardly a savage one. I don't think that any director other than Hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. It would have been all menace and shadows, hiding places, abortive attempts, scowls instead of grins.

Not that it's an entirely flawless movie. A flawless movie is not yet with us. Some of the middle section is a bit slow going and Farley Granger, although a nice guy, is stolid, dull, and rather stupid. His new girl friend is just dull.

Hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in "The Wrong Man." I'm not sure Hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. The latter was imposed on him at an early age by his Catholic education. "Original sin" -- you're BORN with it -- and all that. In filmed interviews, he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. We're justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a "screen memory." I hope you get the pun. I know, I know. It's strained and inept but I spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up.


This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films, and one of his most underrated. I believe it certainly exceeds a 'Psycho' or 'The Birds' for technical artistry and brilliance. It is a macabre, tense, darkly humorous product that will leave you in awe for quite some time.

Robert Walker creates one of Hitchcock's most memorable villains as the father-hating, mother-fixated (but aren't most of Hitchcock's villains mummy's boys?) Bruno. It is a disturbing, stunning performance that illuminates the whole film. His character is obsessive, apparently homosexual (look at those deliberately effeminate ties and hear how he is described as 'European'), strangely charming and dangerous to cross. Farley Granger certainly knows this as he becomes entangled in Bruno's sordid web after the pair meet on a train. Bruno, knowing some inside information on Guy's affairs, proposes the two 'swap' murders for each other's benefit. Walker will kill Granger's slutty, conniving wife who is inhibiting his marriage to beautiful Anne, whilst Granger will murder Bruno's father, who he so intensely hates. Everyone's happy, right? A win-win, as Bruno asserts? Wrong. Granger forgets about the indecent proposal, but an obsessed Walker doesn't. He commits his murder and is determined to hound Granger until he completes his side of the bargain too. 'Strangers' becomes a riveting, suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in Hitch's capable hands.

Hitchcock was absolutely amazing at creating intriguing minor characters and building scenes. We have the whore Miriam, Granger's estranged wife pregnant to another man. She lasciviously slurps a phallic ice-cream cone whilst openly eating up Bruno with her eyes. Barbara Morton, Anne's sister, is a deceptively sweet yet smart and cunning young girl who comes out with the most crude remarks you'll hear from a bespectacled girl in the pictures in the 50's. Senator Morton is authoritative and self-absorbed. This is one of the most daring films Hitchcock ever made, and it is, typical to a Hitch film, subtly sexual in detail.

This fits into the film-noir category with it's focus on murder, lies and deceit and shadowy cinematography. Walker's nut is one for the ages, and Granger makes a convincing troubled protagonist. Roman is perhaps weaker than the other two, and I never believed her relationship with Granger. Still, the overwhelming positives cancel out the slight negatives and it can be safely said that this is one of the BEST American films ever made.

Just look at what Hitch does here- the originality, the technical skill. We see the murder of Miriam reflected in her shattered glasses. A game of tennis turns into one of the most thrilling, intense scenes you'll ever see. A innocent fairground turns into a place of murder and foul occurrences. A young boy's balloon is popped callously by Walker (Hitch obviously liked what he saw in 'The Third Man!').Children's delight at riding the carousel turns into screaming, fast-paced terror. Hitch subverts normal, everyday events like no other.

The camera-work here is among the best ever seen in a Hitchcock film, and the premise is to-die-for. It's slick, oozes sophistication and devilish charm. The cross-cutting between Walker and Granger's characters is magnificent- Granger's do-or-die tennis match is just as vital as villain Walker's rescue of an incriminating piece of evidence lost down a drain. Hitch again build his villain into a nasty, repulsive yet sympathetic and oddly charming (Did anyone else find him strangely attractive, more so than Granger?) piece of work- we are just as tense as Walker in our hope that he can get the lighter out of the drain. We need him to, anyway. He holds the key to the story.

You'll never view an approach from a stranger in the same way again after seeing this film.

Amazing.

10/10.


In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: "He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour." The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.

"Strangers on a Train" is probably one of the best in his "wrongly-accused" series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.

Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.

Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.

"Strangers on a Train" is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.

The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an "i'll-get-you" smile.

The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).

"Strangers on a Train" is easily one of Hitchcock's best "wrongly accused" movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.

<< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>>


In Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers On A Train", Guy Haines (Farley Granger)and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker)meet for the first time on a train journey and discuss the idea of carrying out two murders. The rather pushy Anthony suggests that he could murder Haines' unfaithful wife and Haines could murder Anthony's domineering father. The lack of any connection between the murderer and the victim in each case should ensure that both crimes would remain unsolved. The tenor of the conversation leaves the more easy going Haines with the impression that the proposal is not entirely serious. Complications arise later when Anthony murders Haines' wife in an amusement park and then pursues Haines to keep his side of the bargain.

The differences between the two men are clear from the start. Haines is a professional tennis player, respectable and rather modest about his achievements whereas Anthony's life is going nowhere and he admits to having been thrown out of three colleges for drinking and gambling. Haines is in a relationship with a Senator's daughter who he wants to marry. Anthony characteristically interprets this as a cynical manoeuvre on Haines' part to provide himself with a shortcut to a career. The character differences are also reinforced visually. Anthony often inhabits shadowed areas and travels in a boat called "Pluto" whereas Haines is frequently seen from the more heroic perspective provided by low camera angles.

There are some striking visual sequences such as:-

(1) The murder of Haines' wife which is shown through the reflection of her glasses which fall to the ground as she struggles to free herself from Anthony.

(2) The depiction of Anthony alone, dressed in black and looking very small against the enormous white Jefferson Memorial building.

(3) The occasion where all the spectators at a tennis match are moving their heads in unison, following the action, whilst one head (Anthony's) chillingly remains fixed in a position looking at Haines.

(4)The scene where the roundabout goes wildly out of control and eventually crashes spectacularly.

Frequent use is made of "doubles" throughout the story, for example, Haines and Anthony are originally introduced as 2 pairs of feet getting out of their taxis and going to the train. As the train pulls out of the station, there are 2 sets of tracks each providing a choice of 2 ways forward. The 2 men discuss the murders of 2 potential victims and order 2 double whiskies. The Hitchcock cameo sees him struggling on board the train carrying a double bass. Haines feels double crossed when his wife reneges on an agreement they had for her to see a lawyer to arrange a divorce. Haines' wife goes to the amusement park with 2 boyfriends. When Anthony confronts her before the murder he lights his cigarette lighter and produces 2 reflections in her glasses. Anthony later becomes very disconcerted when he meets the Senator's younger daughter who he sees as a double for Haines' wife. Anthony also feels double crossed when Haines refuses to go ahead with the second murder. When Haines is travelling alone in a train going to Metcalf, he sees 2 men in the same carriage accidentally kicking their feet together in the same way that he and Anthony had.

The action throughout the movie proceeds at a great pace and the performances of Robert Walker and Patricia Hitchcock (as the Senator's younger daughter) are particularly powerful.


I have never seen this in the theater, my second viewing was tonight on big screen DVD as opposed to old VHS tape from rental store.

Saucey for it's time and I'm sure the Hayes code was pushed to it's limits.

Hitch's pallet here is the "game play" between two combatants. And yes if Guy calls the cops on Bruno right away the movie is 63 min shorter, HELLO people do you always make the best or most logical choice. How many times have you been in either person's shoes and made the right choice? For the love of God it's called poetic license..However as Guy sees the situation he has found himself in he takes it upon himself to rectify it. He does not solicit help nor does he lie to his would be new wife. Her defense of him sets off the final show down with Bruno feeling he has one more card to play.

For the cop shot-ting an innocent person in pre-cam corder days and before rules of engagement this type of thing did happen. In the post Rodney King world a presidential candidate backed the police in sending 43 bullets at an unarmed man. If you haven't seen or witnessed outrageous police behavior your blind or have an application pending for the academeny.

Back to the movie...

Go watch it with. Try and wear a post WWII filter and pretend your seeing a great suspense movie like many did for the first time back then, and sure it's been copied since but your looking at one of the source of inspiration for many that followed.


When Alfred Hitchcock made STRANGERS ON A TRAIN it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. From 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes, and his contractual arrangement with David O. Selznick ended because of this. Actually he made some really good films in the period, such as NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, UNDER CAPRICORN, ROPE, and (my opinion) STAGESTRUCK. But while NOTORIOUS AND SPELLBOUND were liked, the audiences were turned off by Hitch's attempts at experimentation: his use of a dream sequence by Salvator Dali in SPELLBOUND was acceptable, as was the setting among psychiatrists. But the experiment with long takes in ROPE confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film), and the willingness of Hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked - far more disliked then it deserved to be - in STAGESTRUCK. A matter of bad timing for UNDER CAPRICORN (it was released just as the scandal of it's star Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn't). THE PARADINE CASE was another failure - and one that really had little in it's favor.

With STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. Instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the story was of how Guy Haines, a professional tennis player, meets a fan of his - Bruno Anthony, a playboy - who is traveling on a cross-country train at the same time as the athlete. Bruno is talkative and fawning, and Guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met...if a little eccentric, with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. But Bruno knows all about Guy's personal problems. He is married to a promiscuous young woman named Miriam, and is in love with Anne Morton, daughter of a Senator. Bruno knows that Miriam won't divorce her successful celebrity husband. Bruno mentions how he can sympathize - he hates his stepfather, who is constantly criticizing him. Then Bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men - technically strangers - exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect, unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. Guy listens to the idea - and agrees it is an interesting idea. The train reaches Guy's destination, and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. He just does not realize that the "eccentric" Bruno is a sociopath, and believes Guy has just agreed to the two killing each other's foe!

It's a wonderfully simple plot actually. Bruno, of course does kill Miriam, but he fully expects Guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. Guy is horrified - and worse, he finds that he is the police department's number one suspect. When Bruno, to encourage Guy, mentions he has the latter's lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site, Guy finds himself in deeper problems - how to avoid the police, and how to control (if possible) the insane Bruno?

Hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully, so that from the start we see both our "heroes" from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. There are constant cross-contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other's orbits. It is like fate drawing them together. Yet both have their own personality - and Hitch, with a typical twist, makes the mad Bruno actually more of an attractive figure. His scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful, and he will have Guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. One suspects that once Guy too had one, but his marriage's failure, coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman, has made him more circumspect and dull than he was.

The cast is good too. Robert Walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). It was a far cry from the homespun boy-next-door of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY or THE CLOCK. His lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. As Guy Farley Granger acts like a cousin of his co-murderer in ROPE, especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to Jimmy Stewart). As for the ladies, Kasie Rogers is properly sluttish as Miriam - enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering Bruno in his act of evil. Patricia Hitchcock appears as the younger sister of Anne (Ruth Roman), who bears a close resemblance to Miriam, and accidentally sets off Bruno at a social occasion. She plays this rare role well. Ruth Roman is properly supportive of Granger, but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background, and somewhat low keyed. Other supporting performers, Leo G. Caroll as the Senator, Marion Lorne (usually a comedian) as Bruno's dotty mother, and Norma Varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from Walker are all shown to best advantage - all at the hand of a master.


Safer indeed. Hitchcock is cinema's all time pervert; however, we all know his perversions are ours as well, so we forgive him. And we not only forgive him but we applaud his clever way to invite us for an unforgettable train ride.

I saw Hitch's 1953, I Confess, a week before this one, and I put both in the same category as part of his trademarks. These trademarks resided in his genius questioning and pulsing his artistic veins that spills psychological drops of blood on the viewer without leaving stains of guilt, instead very subtle awareness of feeling ashame.

The pen is always mightier than the sword and Hitch firmly wrote the most arguable questions with his wrist, and then holding firmly with his hands, he held cameras that always reflected peoples thirst for blood (most humans have), otherwise comedy wouldn't be mostly a tragic thing, and making people laugh wouldn't be so complex.

Mixing all dark elements of "high society", with a wealthy psychopath Bruno, and an ambitious tennis player wanna be politician, Guy, the story is one of the most well constructed and guided by Hitch, inspiring many filmmakers, not only with its plot, but with tricky images provoking dark smiles and happy nightmares.

Barely perfect!


One of Alfred Hitchcock's three greatest films, along with "Psycho" and "The 39 Steps", "Strangers On A Train" is as brilliantly out-of-control as a merry-go-round in Metcalf, and almost as deadly. It's the kind of film you have so much fun watching, you can't even feel properly guilty about it until you have time to catch your breath.

Top amateur tennis contender Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a singularly weird, louche stranger named Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Thanks to the gossip pages, Bruno knows all about Guy's problems with his no-good wife Miriam, and rather gaily suggests they do each other a favor: Bruno will kill Miriam and Guy will kill Bruno's father, who wants to put Bruno in an institution. Guy laughs it off, but Bruno ain't kidding, as Guy finds out to his peril.

It's a great premise for a murder story, and Hitchcock gives "Strangers On A Train" a run for all its worth, with the help of Walker in perhaps the greatest performance in any Hitchcock film, including Anthony Perkins in "Psycho". While Perkins makes his mark playing tetchily against the grain, Walker as Anthony is one perfectly at home either buttering up old ladies at a swank dinner party or strangling a young woman at an amusement park.

What drives Bruno? Many commentators suggest his apparent homosexuality finds a match in pretty Guy. Yes, Bruno lights up the old gay-dar, but Guy seems happy enough on love's rebound with socialite Anne Morton (Ruth Roman). Bruno's interest for Guy could just as easily be envy, for someone making a mark in the world while he lives at home, letting Mommy file his nails.

"Oh, I certainly admire people who do things," Bruno purrs, looking like a cat eyeing a mouse. "You know, it must be pretty exciting to be so important."

Later on, Bruno calls himself a "bum", accurate enough except for our rooting interest in him, even as he wrecks Guy's life with his homicidal meddling. It's the ultimate perverse underdog's tale. There's a sense of integrity about Bruno, in his dogged dedication, which commands our respect and which Hitchcock plays to so brilliantly. When Bruno floats away from the scene of his big crime, am I the only sick person in this world who's actually happy for him? I think not, yet Hitchcock keeps the story on a right-enough path for us to realize how low we have fallen. We don't want Bruno to win, exactly, but we enjoy his élan as he tries.

Everything else is so perfect, or at least close enough, to make every shot memorable. Hitchcock always managed at least 2-3 good setpiece sequences per movie; here you get a score of them at the amusement park alone. ("20 Big Shows" the neon side at the entrance says, and they aren't kidding.) Script, camera-work, a gripping tennis match, Ruth Roman's jaw-dropping figure, it's all too much greatness for one film to contain. Even Granger does his callow-youth thing here with more risible plausibility than Gregory Peck ever managed.

You can call this a clinic in movie-making, but "clinic" sounds too dull. "Strangers On A Train" is good nasty fun, all the way through, leaving you with a nifty stinger at the tail as you realize you were rooting for the wrong stranger all along. Heck, I'll take that ride over again in a second!


As I looked at this movie once again, I think it belongs among Hitchcock's greatest films. The first time I saw it I was just blown away by the suspense, action and imagery. It has the gripping ending, the deranged murderer, the innocent man framed or victimized by circumstances, some great on-location shots, e.g. the Jefferson Memorial in Washington and Penn Central in New York. It also has great supporting actors with Hitch's daughter Patricia in the role of the younger sister to Ruth Roman and the stalwart Leo G. Carroll in another of his Hitchcock movies. The merry-go-round episode near the end is one of the most nerve-wracking in Hitchcock's body of work.

Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony (his last full film) gives a great performance as the deranged stranger on the train, who worms himself into the life of the unsuspecting tennis star, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Granger plays the nice guy who is caught up in a messy divorce. The movie opens with the camera showing the shoes of two separate men as they leave their taxis to board the train. Eventually, they meet and the story takes over. The stranger takes an unusual interest in the tennis star and as the movie continues,the stranger becomes a stalker. The action shifts from place to place, including Washington, the fictional small town of Metcalf, the Forest Hills tennis championship, and a passenger train taking the two leading men back and forth on separate missions. Towards the end, the pace of a tennis game is woven into the plot as they race against time. The camera cuts away to the faces of the athletes as they volley and serve in a remarkable series of shots. When the closely-fought contest is over, the climactic chase takes place. Hitchcock has a love for trains and it is great to see Penn Station, long since gone. Trains are featured in the 39 Steps, the Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, North by Northwest and this movie.

This classic Hitchcock thriller took place at the start of a period of great creativity for the master of suspense - the 1950's and I am convinced that one day it will be given its due in the Hitchcock hall of fame.


I knew the premise of this film, and obviously I can't miss a good sounding film, especially from "Master of Suspense" director Sir Alfred Hitchcock. Basically tennis champ Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets eccentric stranger, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train travelling from Washington to New York. Bruno talks about a perfect murder, Guy hates his wife, and Bruno hates his father, so Bruno "suggests" swapping murders. Guy obviously didn't take him seriously, until of course when Guy's wife Miriam Joyce Haines (Kasey Rogers (or Laura Elliott)) is found murdered in an amusement park. Guy of course is the chief suspect, and Bruno keeps "bumping into him" reminding him of their "plan", and giving him more things to help him kill the father he wants dead. This murder enquiry and Bruno's stalking are threatening his tennis career, and his relationship with the daughter of Sen. Morton (North by Northwest's Leo G. Carroll), Anne (Ruth Roman). Bruno realises that Guy won't do his murder, so he decides to plant the evidence at the crime scene to make him guilty, Guy's monogrammed cigarette lighter at the amusement park. After his tennis game, Guy and Anne (who obviously found out the murder "plan") race to the amusement park to stop Bruno, and they have a fight on the speeding out-of-control carousel. Also starring Patricia Hitchcock (the director's daughter) as Barbara Morton, Marion Lorne as Mrs. Anthony, Jonathan Hale as Mr. Anthony, Howard St. John as Police Capt. Turley and John Brown as Prof. Collins, and Hitchcock's cameo is the Man boarding train carrying a double bass. Some interesting dialogue and character interactions, some good suspense moments, and of course the unforgettable carousel finale, a good classic film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Cinematography. Sir Alfred Hitchcock was number 75 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, the film was number 32 on 100 Years, 100 Thrills. Very good!


In my never-ending quest to see as many quality movies as possible in my lifetime, i stumbled upon this film on cable. I tried Hitchcock three times before this, and never have i felt that the man's work lived up to the praise he had received. I always felt he was good, not great (from what I've seen) This was the best of his films I've seen thusfar. Robert Walker is absolutely chilling, his performance takes the film where Hitchcock wanted it to go. Even an average performance here damages the overall product. My favorite scene was his obsession about getting the lighter from the drain (how exactly does he get his arm down there though?) Bruno is quite a compelling character, but i also loved the performance by Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara. The rest of the Morton family as well as Guy were a bit dry and boring, but she added some flare to the movie, as well as having some of the better lines in the script.

Lastly, in any suspense movie, you're going to live and die by your ending. This one holds water, unlike a couple other Hitchcock films I've seen. I truly was unsure of how it would end, which kept me on the edge while i watched and waited.


I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10


Has aged really well - still thrilling and suspenseful today. Certainly one of Hitch's best movies. Beautifully shot, with a great premise for suspense, sex-appeal provided by beautiful Ruth Roman. Because of the great premise, you feel like you have to watch it to the end. If you find yourself losing faith in Hitch and doubting his title as the Master of Suspense, i recommend this nice little movie as an antidote. 5 out of 5.


Rating: 8 out of 10. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets the mysterious Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker) on a train. Soon afterwards, Guy finds himself drawn into the psychotic realm of Bruno's world.

Guy is separated from his wife and is now involved with a senator's daughter. Guy is interested in entering into politics after he retires from tennis. Bruno wants to kill his own father but doesn't want to do it himself.

Bruno proposes that he disposes with Guy's wife, while Guy's part of the deal is to eliminate Bruno's father. Guy dismisses this idea since he isn't interested in having his troublesome wife killed.

Bruno goes ahead with his half of the proposal. While Guy becomes the prime suspect of his wife's murder. As law enforcement continues to investigate Guy, Bruno continues to torment Guy, wanting him to complete the other half of the proposal.

'Strangers on a Train' has one of the most exciting endings of all Hitchcock movies.


This is a well-crafted piece from everyone's favorite master of suspense. As usual, the technical elements such as camera work and lighting are outstanding (especially for the film's time). I did not find the first part of the film very exciting, but the latter one certainly made up for it with one thrilling scene after another.

The only thing I did not like about this movie was the choice of Farley Granger for the part of Guy Haines. Somehow, I didn't find him very believable. On the other hand, Robert Walker shines as sinister 'bad guy' Bruno Anthony.

Overall, I would highly recommend this.


It's been said before--Strangers on a Train is Hitchcock's best movie--and he's made so many good ones! Like other Hitchcock, Strangers on a Train requires your full attention to really appreciate it, but once you can...you will.


This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now.


This movie was fabulous. It is definitely a top 5 hitchcock film. The directing and camera shots are nearly flawless(aside from the dog scene when he licks the guys hand, clearly in slow motion). The plot is well written and realistic. It was very believable that an innocent man could fall into a trap like that.

 I would rate Bruno as hitchcocks second most interesting character( of course bates is first). Robert Walker plays a very believable maniac. He didnt overact the part which made it believable(much the same how perkins didnt overact his part). Overall this is an excellent movie, an absolute must see for any hitchcock fans.


The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to the cop in the first place.4/5


The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to

the cop in the first place.4/5


I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended.


Being the second last of Chaplin's Essanay films, CARMEN is a parody of Cecil B. Demille's drama with the same title. It stands as quite obvious that Demille's acknowledged film didn't impress the comedy king that much, which he later admitted in his autobiography.

Parodies were not a new experiment for Chaplin. He had done several of them already, namely HIS PREHISTORIC PAST and HIS NEW JOB, and would continue to do so until the very end of his career in films (for instance in A KING IN NEW YORK).

Chaplin does a very good portrayal of Don José, and Edna Purviance's is very as good as Carmen. Neither act as we are used to; Charlie is not the lovable Tramp and Edna is far from an innocent little woman, but that was not Chaplin's intentions, either. A BURLESQUE ON CARMEN is a somewhat odd Chaplin-film, very different, but includes good material nonetheless.

The main story is, although very differently structured, as in the original drama. Don José is very much in love with Carmen, but is not alone in that field; "Carmen, Carmen, (the) beautiful Carmen, (is) loved by all men under 96," but he has the big advantage that he is an officer, and there we are; this is the famous story about rivalry, love, greed and honor, seen from a humorous perspective. Thanks to Chaplin's and Purviance's performances, and to the wonderful, wonderful music by George Bizet which I highly admire, this could actually have been a near-comedy masterpiece, it's time taken into consideration. It could have been. But unfortunately, although it is a good pretty good comedy, I don't feel it's fair to blame people who claim that A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is far from being a masterpiece. But it's important to keep in mind that this has nothing to do with any lack of talent, but rather a result of conflicts concerning business. When Chaplin refused to re-sign Essanay contract after completing his last film for the company, POLICE, they took revenge by editing back all the scenes Chaplin originally had edited out from CARMEN. Thanks to this, the film is somewhat confusing and has several pointless scenes which are more annoying than funny, and the film turned out to be rather a Ben Turpin-feature --Turpin played Remendados-- than a Chaplin-short. Naturally, Chaplin was in despair when he discovered what Essanay had done, and had to stay in bed for several days.

Despite its obvious flaws, A BURLESQUE OF CARMEN is highly recommended to Chaplin-fans and to admirers of beautiful music.


One of Chaplin's longest films up to that point, Burlesque on Carmen is a clever and surprisingly complex parody of what was then "Prosper Merimee's" well-known story about "Carmen." I was a little confused about the difference between the IMDb's listing of the 1915 Burlesque on Carmen and the 1916 version. Based on the running time I assume that it was the 1915 version that I saw, since the 1916 one is a good 20 minutes longer, and from what I've read, those are 20 unnecessary and unimpressive minutes.

From the very beginning, it's clear that Burlesque on Carmen is one of Chaplin's most complex and ambitious efforts to date, starting off with a long back story, told through inter-titles, about the tragic love story of Carmen.

Carmen is sent by a band of gypsies ("A band who put the GYP in gypsy."), to seduce a Spanish officer so they can pull off their smuggling operation. It's a clever, Chaplinesque band of criminals, the leader of whom, Lillas Pastia, has "spent 50 years learning to steal, thinking he might be offered a job in politics."

On a side note, I've seen some almost misogynistic messages and jokes in some of Chaplin's earlier work, but probably none quite as overt as in this one. Near the beginning of the movie, as the band of gypsies are traveling, there is a scene where the mules and women are loading, and an inter-title explains that "the mules are the ones with long ears." In case you couldn't tell, I guess.

Chaplin plays the part of Don Jose, the hapless officer who is to be seduced by Carmen. He is described as "a brave soldier and lover of women." Not exactly a stretch for Chaplin who removed any doubt about his ability to play a convincing comic soldier a few years later in the brilliant Shoulder Arms. And of course, he didn't have to act about being a lover of women.

What is different here, of course, is his polished military uniform and straight-backed disciplinary manner, interspersed, of course, with some of his traditional slap-stick moves. He strikes me as a little guy in a position of authority, struggling to maintain the respect of his subordinates by exerting a gruff, stolid exterior.

Soon Carmen enters ("Loved by all men under the age of 96"), and she immediately begins flirting with Charlie. I should mention that for a good majority of the movie, it is surprisingly faithful to the original story, which was full of jealousy and tragedy. Chaplin is strangely convincing as a jealous lover, able to evoke a jealous passion that I've never seen from him. There's at least one scene where he is genuinely a little scary.

Chaplin has some great sight gags in the movie, like a hilarious table dance and some classic sword fighting near the end. And his boyish charm and the role of a soldier is also definitely a winning combination, although there is another peculiar stunt involving a group of men pushing a huge door back and forth that wasn't very effective to begin with but just kept going on and on and on, probably about five times longer than it was worth. Although it was interesting that when it finally fell over it clearly was revealed as a movie prop. I always appreciate such glimpses at the old movie sets.

The end of the film is it's strongest part. It bears striking resemblance to Romeo and Juliet, but just when you think that Chaplin is going to conduct a major thematic experiment by diverging distantly from his traditional style, there is a hilarious twist that is as vintage Chaplin as anything I've ever seen. Nice work!


I Would have to disagree strongly with the previous lame comment. I watched this not expecting too much from it. The Fact is that the cast were superb, Especially The lead Teen Female. The dark sides of them all came through, all were messed up in an not obvious way. There was an underlying current which ran through the movie of teenage angst and sexuality. The serial killer role was played well also as you could feel he had gone through what they had as children. What this movie is, is a strong drama/thriller. Yes I would agree they don't do the obvious, but you could relate with the messed up teenage heads they did what they did and it is believable. Also a decent dark ending, instead of which could have so easily been an opt out happy one. The attention to detail in the movie was fantastic also. I very good solid 7 out of 10. A little slow at times, but lets a thinking person see where the characters are coming from.


I saw what I believe to be the best Australian film of the year so far, Jon Hewitt's Acolytes.

Acolytes is a stylish thriller with a killer premise. Get thistwo bullied and molested teens discover a local serial killer in their suburb AND then set about blackmailing him to kill the bully who molested them. Hewitt has picked a top notch cast including excellent new comers Sebastian Gregory, Josua Payne and Hanna Mangan Lawrence to play the teens. Add to that three, yes, thats right three great psycho's! Lead by Joel Edgerton in an outstanding performance of serial killer du jour, Belinda McClory his deranged spouse and Michael Dorman as the teen raping bully, with swastika tattoos. Once you add these teens and these menacing adults, all hell breaks loose Hewitt has crafted a balls to the wall serial thriller thats damn original and accomplished. You can see the influence of Larry Clark and David Lynch's Twin Peaks but Hewitt makes it all his own, in a Qld suburban back water, always ringing with the drones of emptiness. The script by Shayne Armstong, Shane Krouse and Hewitt is tight.

If marketed correctly this film could be a break out hit with teens. The next Wolf Creek? It could well be. It makes all the right moves. The teens are real ala Larry Clark. They don't suck and have an attached PC agenda, they are non communicative, good looking and hip. The killers are dark with real menace. Joel Edgerton steals his scenes as the mild mannered local Ted Bundy, who sports a butterfly on his 4WD spare ala John Fowles The Collector. Dorman's petrol head rapist pours on the menace that tops Suburban Mayhem and provides a creepy thug who you can't wait to see buy the farm.

The film is fast paced, tough and brutal. Not only that, it displays a confidence and directorial mastery from Hewitt that is surely to win him an IF or AFI nomination, if not award! Its nuanced and poetic mise en scene, brilliant sound design, excellent cinematography and tight structure mark it as clearly one of the best directed Oz features I have seen so far this year.

The film leaves you shaken, thinking and unsettled. Its a truly great edition to the return to genre going on in Australian cinema at present. It will surely garner the interest of Hollywood. Oh, and did I mention it got into Toronto? What other Oz feature films can say that much? The world should get ready for a new auteur, Jon Hewitt.


I have been a Mario fan for as long as I can remember, I have very fond memories of playing Super Mario World as a kid, this game has brought back many of those memories while adding something new. Super Mario Galaxy is the latest installment in the amazing Mario franchise. There is much very different about this game from any other Mario before it, while still keeping intact the greatest elements of Mario, the first noticeable difference is that the story takes place in space.

The story begins much like any other Mario game, Mario receives a letter from Princess Peach inviting him to a celebration at her castle in the Mushroom Kingdom. Upon arriving at Peach's castle Mario finds Bowser and his son (Bowser Jr.) attacking the castle with their airships. Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and then lifts her castle up into space. In the midst of the castle being lifted into space Mario falls off and lands on an unknown planet. Mario is found by a talking star named Luma and is taken back to the Luma's home, a floating space station, here Mario meets many other Lumas and also meets their leader, a woman named Rosalina. Rosalina tells Mario that Bowser has taken away the space station's Power Stars and scattered them across the universe, it is up to Mario to help the Lumas find them and save Peach, thus the adventure begins.

The way you play the game is by flying from the space station to other galaxies, each galaxy consists of multiple planets that Mario travels amongst in levels via these shooting stars to retrieve the Power Stars. Mario can at many times walk all the way around planets without losing gravity, some planets are small and others are big, many planets are similar to classic Mario environments. The best thing about the game are the controls, all of the stuff like jumping and such is still the same, but the wiimote is used in many unique ways in this game. You shake the remote Mario will perform a spin that is used as the primary attack in the game, and it will as well activate the shooting stars. You can also point the remote at the screen and use the pointer to fire star bits at enemies or objects in the environment. Then there is the graphics, these are by far the best graphics on the Wii, it is just so hard to describe how great this game looks, you could probably almost say it looks as good as some 360 games.

My only minor gripes is that the going upside down effect takes some getting used to, and also the story is pretty weak. The worst part is that you lose all of your lives when you turn off the game, no matter how many you had when you last quit you restart at 4 lives. Still these minor problems aside it's a superb game that is highly entertaining and is very challenging. This is the type of game that we've been waiting for on the Wii.

A perfect 10 out of 10!


*THIS COMMENT WILL PROBABLY HAVE SPOILERS!! I CHECKED THE SPOILERS BOX JUST IN CASE BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE SPOILERS, BUT BE AWARE ANYWAYS IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A SPOILER AND I DON'T!* Wow...best game since Super Mario 64. I got this game the first day it came out, and before I got it, I went on some gaming websites to look at its ratings (yes, they already reviewed it before it came out), and I was shocked. I was expecting something like Sunshine because lately all the Mario games have kind of been getting worse and worse. But this one totally beat the other games. The scores on this game even beat Halo 3! It's simply amazing.

STORY: Not the best, Mario games are never known for their plots, and this one isn't really much of a difference. Bowser once again kidnaps Peach but this time invades the Mushroom Kingdom on a festival celebrated once every century and gets a flying saucer and it shoots lasers on the ground and then they put anchors inside the ground and rip off the castle and its foundation into outer space.

GRAPHICS: Absolutely gorgeous, the best graphics on Wii so far. The water effects are really nice too, if you ever see the water, it looks so real because the effects they put in it.

MUSIC: Simply amazing, the music in this game is orchestrated. Not all of it, but even the ones that aren't orchestrated still sound very nice.

GAMEPLAY: Very entertaining, keeps you wanting to play more and more, and for me, since usually I tend to be very frustrated with games if I die a lot, I mean, I'm definitely not the only one, but this game for me didn't have that a lot. Now it still kind of did, but not to the point like Mario 64 where I totally go crazy and end up turning off the game because it made me mad, this one never did that.

DIFFICULTY: There are two types of difficulty, because you can just technically beat the game with just 60 stars, which I think is kind of easy, but to beat the game 100%, you have to get 120, like always, and that quest is way harder, but at the same time still very fun.

LENGTH: Good length, definitely not too short. It took me around 15-16 hours to beat it with just 60 stars, but 120 took me more like 45-50 hours. Now I didn't play it constantly that much, I played first a lot one day, then the next couple of days just a couple hours each day, then the next two days I played it all day. To me though, I think the quest for 60 stars was a tiny bit short, so if you want a long game, I suggest getting all of them.

PRESENTATION: Now, the cinematic scenes in this movie are superb. The way they are, it just looks so much like something I would see in the theaters. They are hands down the best cinematic scenes on any Mario game so far.

OVERALL: This game is definitely a great game, and I advise you to not wait until Christmas, get it as soon as possible. This game also is a good mixture of old and new, you'll have some sidescroller levels where you move just side to side, or up and down because they'll change on gravity, but even the music has some old classics in it. So this game seems to be like a masterpiece. To me, it's my favorite Mario game of all time, but others may disagree. But it's still a great game. I recommend every gamer who wants to have fun in a game to get this.


the mario series is back, and in my opinion, better than ever. Galaxy is the most creative mario yet; even more so than super mario 64. the controls are great; some of the best for the wii. beautiful graphical design as well. the levels are very big, and the good old bosses are back. there is tons to explore in this game; definitely a high level of replay value. I only have 2 complaints: 1: the story is a little to similar to mario 64. and 2: the difficulty isn't very high; though it does require some patience. mario fans: the game you've been waiting for. Casual gamers: this game is more than worth the buy. 9.8 out of 10.


Like some other people wrote, I'm a die-hard mario fan, and I loved this game.

This game starts slightly boring, but trust me, it's worth it. As soon as you start, your hooked! The levels are fun and exiting. They will hook you 'till your mind turns to mush. I'm not kidding. This game is also orchestrated, and is beautifully done.

To keep this spoiler free, I have to keep my mouth shut about details. But please try this game! It'll be worth it!

Story: 9.9 Action: 10.1 (It's that good!) Hardness: 10 Attention Grabber: 10 Average: 10


(Warning: May Contain Spoilers) Let Rosalina help Mario lead the way and smile because this game will brighten your day.

120 stars will require luck and skill, but 60 will bring you as much of a thrill!

Blasting through stars show Mario and Luigi and what travelers they now are!

Walking upside down has never been more fun, especially a final battle with Koopa near the Sun!

This is truly a super awesome game and it absolutely deserves a place in Nintendo's Hall of Fame!


Ever since 1981, Nintendo has been making great video games such as Super Mario and Zelda. Most ideas would get a bit boring after 20 years. Games made by Nintendo never seem to get boring because they're always adding something new. It went from arcade games to the Wii and I hear that there's a new version of the Wii scheduled for release in 2011. The thing that makes Wii games so different is the fact that your actually doing something instead of just sitting on the couch pushing buttons.

And I have more good news. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is to be released in 2010.


This is one of those games where you love it to bits or hate it to shreds.Even being a hardcore Mario fan can make you dislike this game.You can hate it because it is 2 short and somewhat boring and easy.Or you can love it because it is a mixture of amazing graphics(not a Nintendo fan huge excitement) music or game play.I know a lot of people that say it is amazing,and others who think its the worst Mario ever.It really depends on the type of Nintendo fan you are.I personally love this game and I think it is the best wii game,but you should determine that for yourself.So I think you should absolutely get it if you are the right Nintendo fan.But If you love The classics too much,you may not like it.So try it out yourself.


What exactly do people expect when they watch an Al Adamson film? Are they expecting classic cinema that is wonderful beyond belief and will leave them with lasting memories? You'd think so by some of the reviews. Al Adamson's films are trashy and sleazy and cheesy, not much more, so if you go into them knowing that already it helps, and they aren't necessarily to be taken at face value, especially when they have so much unintentional entertainment value. First off, this starts by ripping off the end theme music from Outer Limits, so you know things are looking promising. This is the story of some wacko cult that lives in the hills and while trying to raise a dead body, the leader suffers a heart attack and ends up in the hospital. Of course Nurse Sherri tends to his needs and all, and when an operation is needed she just happens to be hanging out in the operating room when the guy passes on so his spirit invades her. And Nurse Sherri begins to change. No longer the nice nurse, she develops a taste for blood and sharp objects. There's a couple little side stories going on like folks trying to burn the body of the dead cult leader and a blinded football star that has become the love object of one of Sherri's co-workers who also just happens to dabble in voodoo. This is not bad if you're a cult film fan, but it may be bad if you're a "Spiderman" fan because you won't like it. At times this actually lurches towards "respectability" (for Adamson, anyway) but then it "unredeems: itself with some ridiculous event. If you enjoy Adamson's films and similar trash you may well like this, for anyone else who may be looking for a lost treasure, keep digging. 7 out of 10.


I love just about everything the late Al Adamson directed in his long and varied career, but "The Possession of Nurse Sherri" stands head and shoulders above fun yet admittedly grade-Z schlockfests like "Horror of the Blood Monsters" and "Dracula Vs. Frankenstein". This film is actually scary! Am I saying that you're going to jump out of your seat when you watch "Nurse Sherri"? No, of course not. But this pastiche of elements from "The Exorcist", "Ruby", and "Carrie" is one of those nice, eerie little horror movies common to the seventies. You can't put your finger on what's so spooky about it, but the film drips with atmosphere. (And what an ending! Don't worry, I won't spoil it for you.) Adamson and producer Sam Sherman really nailed it with this one, and it doesn't matter whether "Nurse Sherri" was a calculated success or a happy accident. Jill Jacobson is likable but not outstanding as the hapless nurse who becomes possessed by the spirit of a recently deceased cult leader (Bill Roy, who shines in his brief role). Geoffrey Land is okay as her surly doctor boyfriend. There are some blaxploitative elements here (profit was the bottom line with these cheap drive-in flicks, after all) but they actually contribute to the plot rather than just being window dressing. "Nurse Sherri" was a Poverty Row production, and it shows at times (sets, special effects, etc.). Still, the film has heart, mostly decent acting and direction, and some genuine chills. Sam Sherman also saw fit to use Harry Lubin's theme music for the late '50s/early '60s television series "One Step Beyond" in this film, which certainly adds to the creepy atmosphere. The DVD contains two significantly different cuts of the movie (the early version features a lot of T&A that wound up on the cutting room floor to make way for more horrific stuff) as well as the theatrical trailer, the TV spot, and a great commentary by Sherman. Does anybody know whatever happened to Bill Roy, by the way? Next to John Carradine, he's the best actor I've ever seen in an Al Adamson film, and he plays the cult leader like he means it.


''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.

The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.

Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.

7 Out Of 10