Barry Champlain is a radio phone-in talk-show host in Dallas, whose no-holds-barred ideas on a plethora of social issues disturb and offend many of his callers and listeners. Is Barry a media messiah in search of truth, or a social misfit out to assault his audience ?

This is an intense, provocative character piece about a man with almost no redeeming features who at the same time seems to be onto some really profound philosophy. Though co-written and directed by Stone, this is really Bogosian's piece all the way and he gives an astonishingly hard-edged and penetrating performance from which there is no escape. Barry is at times one of the most loathsome characters imaginable, spewing bilious misanthropy at everyone around him, particularly those who care about him. But at the same time he is also strangely empathetic, hypnotic, sage, even lovable. Bogosian's hawkish features burn into the frame, with his green eyes constantly darting around as if permanently seeking an answer to some riddle. The movie is essentially an angry, self-righteous rant against all the bigotry, injustice and banality in the world, culminating in a wild three-and-a-half-minute rotating single shot of Barry delivering the ultimate I-hate-everything speech, but boy does it pack a punch. The support cast are great, particularly Greene as the ex-wife and Baldwin as the boss. Robert Richardson's keen photography manages to keep the single radio studio set looking interesting and there's a tense score by Stewart Copeland, with a moving coda featuring that endearing phone-music piece, Telephone And Rubber Band by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra. If you're unfamiliar with Bogosian, check out his amazing talent in this flick - like his contemporaries, Bill Hicks and Denis Leary, he's someone who rarely appears in the mainstream media, purely because his writing is so out there. I find Stone's movies variable; I don't much care for his big successes, but when he is more ordered and objective, as with this (or Salvador and Nixon), he is much more incisive and arresting. A great primal scream of a picture, based on a play by Bogosian, inspired by the true story of Alan Berg, a Denver radio talk show host who was murdered by neo-Nazis in 1984.


Absolutely nothing. The movies that are great in this world are not recognized unless they are filled with gunshots, explosions, and death. This movie is filled with a man talking about showing you a more complex character than has been seen in many movies.

When a movie is incredibly fast paced but stays mostly in one location it has to be the work of a genius. Surprisingly enough, it is, this movie is directed by Oliver Stone and therefore is one of the best directed films of our time.

This movie's screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone and Eric Bogosian (Barry Champlain, main character.). With Oliver Stone's help, the screenplay was created as a seamless, rolling script which keeps you interested the entire time if you have any amount of intelligence. If you have an open mind about any subjects, and the wit to comprehend others, then this movie is something which you should find some way to watch, immediately.


WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed.

I had no idea what this movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this film...


I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie.


Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.

Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help.


Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by "Spacehog" Band

Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (..."Necks will be broke and whips will Crack"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than any Horror Movie.

10 out of 10

Em


Talk Radio sees a man somewhat accidentally stumble through life, indeed the American Dream, from whatever bog-standard and everyday job he has in a store; to presenter of a local radio show before going right the way through to the same job only later syndicated nationwide. It's a role he adopts out of his own aggression and natural mannerisms, a frothing mad approach to freedom of speech as he attacks just about everyone and everything, even those that often call up to agree with him or compliment him. His role as a man that rants on all things good, evil, right, wrong, political, religious, moral and immoral is something that people seem to take to in one form; that of 'it's entertaining and worth tuning in for', but additionally on a plane of rejection and antagonism  two things born out of the very things seemingly encouraged in professional working life in the Western World. This, towards a man as he gets to the very top of his game by way of the American Dream and dealing in freedom of speech as people take to a man but do anything but take to what it is he says.

Talk Radio begins with a montage of tall, towering buildings in a business based area of Dallas, Texas. The skyscrapers are shot from a ,ow angle and tower over the viewer plus everything else in the general vicinity as this voice of one man tears through the images, belting out statements and information on items as these monolithic buildings dominate out screen. They are the very physical representation of capitalism, while the voice of what we learn to be a radio DJ is the oral representation of the free west; personal speech and opinions on anything and everything. Stone will finish his film in the exact same manner in which he started it, although the film is anything but a circular journey of any sort as the characters undergo monumental changes in both what they witness and their general livelihood. Rather, the shots of the buildings act as an anchor around which the study is observed. The ideologies and ideas of a way of life exist; people subscribe to them, but it does them more harm than good; before the re-establishment that this proud way of life still exists and will continue to exist in churning out the sorts of people on display in the film until someone or something drastically changes things.

The DJ is Barry Champlain, a man with a radio show on a local Texan station dealing with just about anything. Champlain's somewhat carefree attitude to some pretty explosive content is established when he flies from one call with a bigoted man whom recently visited a Holocaust museum to a young drug addict whose girlfriend has supposedly overdosed and onto both the berating and mocking of a pizza shop. To us, the content comes across as quite shocking; to these people, everything seems to be business as usual which plants some serious seeds of both doubt and horror within the minds of us, the newcomers to all of this.

What Barry's show is about, nobody ever seems to really establish: everything and nothing. Indeed, time is taken in the form of either jingles or dialogue that the shows immediately pre and post Champlain's show are on specific subjects; gardening, for instance, and are hosted by calm speaking and methodical people whom, I'm sure, do not flit from one random or extreme to another all the time raising the stakes. One wonders what Barry's jingle is, the kind that plays around about lunch time during someone else's' show: "Coming up later, the Barry Champlain show! Featuring the village idiot and psychotic drug abusers!" Indeed, his show's introductory piece carries a matter-of-fact tone, a shouting at the audience, as a loud rock track accompanies it.

Barry's success arrives in the national syndication proposal. It's born out of confrontation and a relationship built on the contempt he has for his listeners and that they have for him. The furthering of the material and the upping of the stakes ought to call into question just how far they think they can take this, and whether this progressing down a track for sake of entertainment is really worth it. It is when the show reaches this level of broadcast that Barry seems to come unstuck for the first time in his broadcasting life, when a supposed serial rapist calls in and leaves mostly everyone slightly stunned. It's at this point the camera pauses on Barry, and by way of depth of focus, encompasses those same looming, towering buildings the film began with which stand outside of the window, directly behind Barry. They remain tall and proud. Specifically, of the ideologies they've been built on and this furtherance of freedom of speech in broadening Barry's show nationwide as one man climbs his profession's ladder suddenly clashes with the sort of content that's being offered. Everything reaches a point too far, and that with freedom, ought to at least come a sense of clarity rather than a mere revelling.

Oliver Stone made Talk Radio right in the middle of both a fascinating and explosive period of film-making he had in the late 1980s. In this time, he produced a series of really well received films in a pretty short space of time; beginning with one of my favourite war films in Platoon before continuing with the quite brilliant Wall Street and eventually finishing with 1991's JFK. One might even say that this run continued on into the mid-nineties with Natural Born Killers. Talk Radio is like its lead character in the sense it's loud, booming, stark and confrontational. It isn't anti-capitalism, as much as it is focused on drawing a line between what is perceived as entertainment and what is just going too far for sake of popularity and riches. Talk Radio is certainly a film that sticks in the memory.


Eric Bogosian gives as great a performance as you'll ever see in an Oliver Stone film. His Barry character is an assault rifle disguised as a man and he blows away anyone, on or off the air, that offends him. Adapted from Bogosian's stage play, "Talk Radio" is a vicious and frightening ride that doesn't let you off until it's too late. By then, you've become familiar with the fringe of racists, rapists, paranoids, wannabe assassins and mere prank callers who listen, speak and lurk in the dark of Dallas nights.

Stone behaves himself, if that's even possible, letting Bogosian dominate every scene, from Barry's humble beginnings to the make or break point when his radio show can reach national syndication. The rest of the cast are uniformly excellent as the lovers and/or co-workers that all have being used and tossed aside by Barry in common.

The only thing I'd change is the recurring theme music, "Bad To The Bone". I'd have used Bachman-Turner Overdrive's "Not Fragile". A better song, one I haven't heard in a film so far and a driving, relentless tune whose ominous riff is like the true soundtrack to Barry's life.

Listen if you dare!


With boundless, raw energy and an uncompromising vision, Talk Radio brilliantly explores the public's fondness for reducing strangers' private problems into entertainment via the radio.

Eric Bogosian is sensational as Barry Champlaine, a rude, in-your-face talk radio host. He's a natural for this kind of role, and fine tunes one of the most impressive, interesting radio personalities I've ever seen on screen. The timing and delivery of his insults to his various callers are strokes of genius.

Alec Baldwin also shines as Barry's boss. He demonstrates the same explosive cynicism that he would later display 1992's Glengarry Glen Ross. But the supporting role that truly stands out is the stoned, seemingly brain-dead teen played by Michael Wincott. You have to see it to believe it.

Oliver Stone and Robert Richardson do a great job with the photography, which is almost entirely confined to a single broadcasting room. The claustrophobic feel of the movie perfectly mirrors its tone. After all, one of the major points of the film is exploiting people's private moments to draw an audience. Stone demonstrates that these moments are often too private for the whole world to experience.

Talk Radio is a film with strong emotional and cerebral impact - the likes of which are seldom seen today.


Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity, and it's distorted interpretations of fame.

An ultimate indictment of our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big thrill.

A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature.


This is a film about passion. The passion it depicts is largely misdirected, even for the leading man. But therein lies the incredible power of this film: it shows us that what we believe can be contaminated by nonsense, and can even lead us to do things that are destructive -- to ourselves or others. Moreover, those who try to escape from acquiring passion (watch the druggie who visits the studio) also risk self-destruction.

The world needs to hear the message of this movie more often.


In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending.


This film is totally mindblowing. It manages to be thought provoking, funny, tragic, and cinematic yet claustrophobic.

Although the flashbacks are unnecessary, the film maintains a pacy, punchy grip and the performances are all excellent, in particular Alec Baldwin, and the mesmerising Eric Bogosian as the film's anti-hero, Barry Champlain.


This is a very cool movie. The ending of the movie is a bit more defined than the play's ending, but either way it is still a good movie.


When it comes to movies, I don't easily discriminate between crap, pure crap and masterpieces. I believe this movie is an absolute masterpiece and it's hard to keep me entertained for more than 90 minutes. This movie ran SLOWER than Mystic River and Harry Potter 3 combined and I still managed to stay riveted to my seat. For me, it was the passion that Eric Bogosian put into his performance. It's extremely difficult to pull off such a stunt and manage to garner any positive effect from it. Bogosian probably nailed one of the toughest single-man performances in modern cinema. I didn't have any respect for Bogosian until the end of the film. The entire monologue minutes before the inexorable climax was the turning point, it was the key that turned me around. This man hit a point so low that he knew he could never recover from it. The corporate boys congratulated him on the performance. His blistering prose made even the slimiest one in the cavalcade shake his head in awe. It made me realize that personal integrity and hypocrisy don't matter in the world of talk radio, even in the corporate world for that matter. Stone may have been pushing some uber-liberal agenda but it was the actual movie and production that got my attention. Oliver Stone is a minor master of the moody. The final third of the film had probably the best lighting and cinematography I have seen in any film. Stone artfully makes the DJ booth feel like five-by-seven cell in a nineteenth century prison. Visually speaking, it appears that Bogosian's only friend is the black foam that absorbs his routine vitriol. He speaks and it doesn't speak back. It's a sad metaphor considering the way he treats the people who handed him his success. Stone and Bogosian carved out a stunning film of a man who is trapped in both a prison of walls and a prison of self. This man is confined to his own volition and he can never escape it. The scene that made me realize his conundrum was when he was unwilling to his ex-wife back. He preferred his own prison instead of the world on the outside. Every story has a conflict and it came down to the simplest of all conflicts: man versus himself. 'Talk Radio' presents this conflict in an intelligent, gripping, and artful fashion. There are no hidden messages in this film and the progression of events should be expected by any astute viewer. I just leaned back and let my mind be grasped by this film and I loved it. It's unheralded, unseen, and it will never receive its due recognition. Let's hope it stays that way because gems deserve to be found and then hidden again. It's a gem because I found it in the discount DVD bin at my local Wal-Mart store. For $5.50, it was worth the half-hour I spent digging trying to find it. I did and I got more than my money's worth. This is one of the best movies ever made and that is worth ten reasons alone. Ten reasons give a score of ten.

Here ends my rant!


Sonny Chiba, as everyone knows, is the man. In this film, he portrays Mas Oyama (1923-1994), a real martial artist who fought over 50 bulls with his bare handsand won (interesting guylook him up). Anyway, Chiba only kills one bull in the film but it's a memorable scene and as the liner notes say, right up there with the zombie vs. shark scene in Zombi! The film also offers up loads of hand-to-hand combat and a decent plot to boot, though I don't believe all of it is true. This film is the first of the Oyama trilogy Chiba made and is recommended for fans of martial arts action. Finally, three neat little tidbits; part of the opening theme was used in Kill Bill Volume 1, Oyama himself appears in the opening sequences, and that is because he trained Chiba in real life for five years!


Mas Oyama was the most successful karate master of the late 20th century. He rejected the "training" of the karate clubs of the time focusing on an intense no holds form of training. He eventually built his system into a huge business empire with hundreds of schools across the world, without compromising his teachings. The testing in the Kyokushin schools are still some of the most physically challenging tests any martial art school requires. One non- physical hardship Oyama faced was prejudice due to his Korean ancestry and he spent time proving that loyalties were to Japan and Japanese Karate. This movie series was part of that effort although anyone who had the chance to meet Oyama (I did) would never question his allegiance to Japan. In this series, Oyama's most famous student, Sonny Chiba, is called upon to portray his master.

Oyama arrives from the countryside where he has been training alone. He challenges and makes short work of the established Karate schools he encounters. Disgusted by the state of karate, Oyama returns to his lone training. He eventually picks up a student, falls in love and gets in the way of gangsters who are allied with the established karate schools. In the middle of this is the legendary bullfight with a mad bull. How much of the film is true is questionable.

That Oyama could kill a bull with his bare hands is true. He was called on to repeat this feat numerous times. There are filmed instances of Oyama actually doing this, although sometimes the bulls seemed to be tethered as Oyama was getting on in years. Sonny Chiba portrays his master with conviction and the karate is quite good. Chiba may not have been the best karate practitioner but, at this point in time, he was certainly above average.

As a whole the movie is good, much better then most martial art films in the drama department. I always wondered why it's not more well known. Possibly it the very realistic depictions of martial arts. People are shown getting tired and hurt unlike 99% of action film where the hero is a limitless fountain of energy and each blow instantly dispatches an opponent to death. Chiba seems so exhausted at one point that it hurts to watch. Perhaps viewers rather not have their entertainment reflect reality so closely.

Recommended especially for martial artists.


Oddly enough, the Independent Film Channel showed this film a week AFTER it showed KARATE BEAR FIGHTER--even though the bear film was the second in the trilogy and this film was the first!!! What were they thinking?! While all three of these films are supposedly based on the life of this great Kyokushin Karate master, you can't help but think that they MUST have embellished the story quite a bit--especially in this first film. Sure, the guy evidently DID fight and kill a bull and later a bear (in fact, he fought and killed MANY bulls during his career), but in this film set in the early 50s, at the end of the film, the hero actually fights about 60 guys and kills many of them brutally. I just can't imagine that this really occurred. So I did some checking and found that while many of the details are correct, some of this film is pure bunk! Yes, he DID kill a man in self-defense and YES he did follow the widow and her son and spent a year working for them--trying to get them to forgive him. But the end of the film is great to watch but hogwash. Seeing one of his opponents get a staff thrust through his head and all the other gory details couldn't have happened or else the Japanese government would have locked Oyama up to protect society! The film is entertaining and the fighting is excellent. There are no complaints about the action or acting. The only minor complaint is the camera work--which is a tad sloppy during some of the fight scenes. Despite this minor complaint, this is a most enjoyable film. In many ways, the wandering Karate master theme is pretty reminiscent of the Zatoichi films--which are also lots of fun to watch but many of the exploits are truly impossible.

FYI--There is an Englished dubbed version of this film entitled "Champion of Death" and I just saw it as well. It's not a bad dubbing and it was letter boxed (a big plus), but still I prefer the subtitled version.


In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films


I attended a screening of "Fierce People" at the 2006 Woodstock Film Festival. I hesitate to label it a "premiere" of any sort, since it was shot in the spring of 2004 and had its world premiere at Tribeca in 2005. It played several festivals that year. Release seemed imminent, then it disappeared. Poof. Vanished. Or so it appeared to the film-going public. Rumors of a theatrical or DVD release have popped up now and then, but all proved unfounded. Then this screening was announced. Perhaps one can call it a "re-premiere?" It certainly felt as if I was witness to a buried treasure. And what a treasure it was.

I suppose one could characterize "Fierce People" as a coming-of-age drama. But it also has elements of comedy and tragedy, as well as mystery. And a bit of farce thrown in. In short, real life. That makes it hard to pigeonhole, which puts it more into the category of an indie as opposed to a Hollywood movie. But its high production values, big budget feel, and star caliber cast seem at odds with the indie label. So let's call it a hybrid. And, perhaps, that's why it's been "lost." It defies categorization.

Meet Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin), 15, whose father is absent. In fact, Finn has never known him. But he sees him and hears him via the collection of home movies sent from South America. Dad is a renowned anthropologist, and has made a name for himself by setting up shop with the Yanomani, the tribe of "Fierce People" who live to kill and, well, procreate. All their activities are built around those two "tasks," and Finn is captivated by it. Mom Liz (Diane Lane) is also somewhat absent. Although present physically, she is lost in a world of cocaine and alcohol. So Finn becomes an adult in his little solitary world with his reels of film.

One summer, Mom decides to drag Finn along with her into the wilds of New Jersey. A massage therapist, Mom has catered to a wealthy client, Ogden C. Osborne (Donald Sutherland, in a tour de force performance) and he has invited her for an extended house call at his palatial estate. Osborne's "tribe" includes an assortment of eccentric rich kids, servants, and village idiots among whom Finn will find himself part of his own anthropological study. Will his experience with Dad's films help him survive life as a visitor to this tribe? Will he be accepted? Or will he be seen as an outsider, concurrently struggling with his own identity as an adolescent? Such is the stuff of fairy tales, and I suppose this would be if not for the dark underbelly which director Griffin Dunne and writer Dirk Wittenborn have infused into this magnificent story.

With Anton Yelchin's voice-over, intercutting pieces of Dad's home movies, Finn must learn to go back to being the teenager he never really had a chance to be, stop being the parent to his Mom, allow newly-sober Mom to be parent to him, and learn responsibility on the way to adulthood the way it should have taken place all along. Yet he needs to make this transformation in a dangerous, dark world where playing with fire is folly to this fractured family.

This is, first and foremost, a story-driven film and Griffin Dunne emphasized as much in the intro to the film. He bought the rights to Wittenborn's novel even as it was being written, and Wittenborn's own screenplay comes to life in the hands of the masterful Dunne in a way that's a work of wonder.

This is also largely a character-driven film, and Sutherland has never been better. His star turn as Osborne stunned those around me and will likely leave you amazed as well. Diane Lane's character ultimately exhibits so many personalities that it's hard to imagine another actor pulling it off so well. She is breathtaking. But more than anything, "Fierce People" is Anton Yelchin's film. He has a long resume as a child actor but preciously little as a teen. Other than the little-known "House of D" (also a gem), he is best known as Byrd on TV's "Huff." In January, he will be seen in "Alpha Dog" (also sitting on the shelf since 2004, a film I saw at Sundance this year and in which he is the "heart and soul"). His performance here goes far beyond what one would expect from someone so young, and is nothing short of spectacular.

This complex, quirky film has remained out of sight long enough. "Fierce People" is a treasure filled with light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, joy and pathos, but mostly wonder.


I thought this was a very good movie. Someone said it was 'sick' so they couldn't watch it. I think if you realize its rated R then you will be prepared for the nudity and drug use. It is a good story and the acting is amazing. Just can't be a prude to appreciate it! Its basically about a mom who does drugs and wants to get clean so she calls a very wealthy old friend and he moves them to his estate and crazy things happen. I guess it is a drama. I am just so sick of people who don't like movies because of cursing or nudity. That is the world we live in. You obviously aren't comfortable with yourself if you can't see things like this movie. And it's rated R. So, that should tell you from the beginning that its not all peachy happy rainbows. I liked it. I think you will too!


I was lucky enough to see this at this years Tribeca film festival. I was stunned by how well made and how entertaining this wonderful little film was. Director Griffin Dunne has done a great job assembling this film that has several characters and several story lines that blend so smoothly and seamlessly. The main story involves the family and it is very thought-provoking and entertaining story that involved the viewer in every scene. The film as a whole has credibility and integrity, yet still has that commercial edge - an "indie" movie for the masses if you like. The performances by the cast are all excellent but it is Diane Lane who shines the brightest. Diane Lane is simply sensational in this wonderful film and should be Oscar nominated. Early days I know, but Lane acts her socks off here.


I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular work. Wake up, studio execs!

The story is based upon the experiences of the author/screenwriter, growing up as the "poor kid" in an extremely affluent community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of life, from clothing to justice.

During the film's Q&A, the author was asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat!

In many ways, this film is extremely timely.


I really enjoyed Fierce People. I discovered the film by accident, searching through my On-Demand movie lists trying to find something interesting to watch. The film is mostly about class in America, and it quickly grabs your attention. The characters are smart and articulate and the story doesn't stick to the usual Hollywood rules.

The main protagonist is Finn, a precocious, but underprivileged 15 year old who spends his summer with the Osbourne family. Donald Sutherland plays the patriarch, Ogden C. Osborne, the seventh richest man in America. Diane Lane plays Finn's mother, a friend of Ogden who is also a habitual cocaine user and a slut. The Osbournes own a large estate and seems to live by their own rules. At first they seem charming and sophisticated but the super-rich are different. They are used to getting their own way. The film is enjoyable mainly because it has crisp intelligent dialog, superb acting and a story which takes unexpected turns. It is also an R rated movie, so it's not entirely wholesome.

The cast is excellent. Anton Yelchin is believable and sympathetic in the demanding role of Finn. Sutherland and Diane Lane have never been better. Chris Evans is impressive as Osbourne's devious grandson. Kristen Stewart is good as the pretty grand daughter. High quality movie.


A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning, the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each person.

Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation, but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent.


To the eight people who found the previous FIERCE PEOPLE comments by "Psycolicious Me" and "Topdany" "helpful," as well as to any future site visitors who see them before their authors delete them: these negative critique's are not only shorter than the site guidelines mandate, but they are entirely bogus, nonfactual, incorrect, and misinformative. For instance, Blythe's dad is in a coma, NOT dead--Maya and Finn even visit him in the hospital. Furthermore, it was estate deer poacher Dwayne--NOT Blythe--who knocked up Jilly the maid, etc., etc. So if you have ADD which makes you incapable of focusing on the simplest details, please keep your condition to yourself by not pretending to be Siskel or Ebert. Otherwise, include a disclaimer with your comments!


From the opening scenes of FIERCE PEOPLE (an interplay of tribal customs as photographed by the anthropologist father of the young narrator Finn Earl, demonstrating why this South American tribe of Ishkanani is so fierce) the direction of the film is nebulous: are we watching a dark comedy about comparing life in the New York streets to uncivilized peoples, or is this a message film of a more serious intent? But as the story develops this fine line between entertainment and philosophical impact becomes increasingly clear. Griffin Dunne's direction of Dirk Wittenborn's adaptation of his novel may be a bit careless at times as it strays from rational plot development, but in the end there is a strong enough final impact to patch up the holes he created.

Our narrator Finn Earl (Anton Yelchin) lives with his coke-addicted masseuse/sexually obsessed mother Liz (Diane Lane) in New York, waiting for the summer when he is to join his anthropologist father on a field trip to South America (a father he knows only from letters and videos), when a drug bust abruptly changes their lives: one of Liz's wealthy clients Ogden Osborne (Donald Sutherland) rescues the down and out family and moves them to his ten acre estate, the epitome of wealth and power. In exchange for being Osborne's private masseuse, Liz and Finn can live in the mansion with the 'filthy rich' Osbornes - daughter Mrs. Langley (Elizabeth Perkins) and grandchildren Bryce (Chris Evans) and Maya (Kristen Stewart). Osborne and his physician lead Liz on the drying out path and Finn bonds with Osborne and his grandchildren, and despite the disparity in poor versus wealthy, the living situation works - for a while. Incidents occur to alter feelings and Finn is attacked and raped by a masked assailant, a turning point for the film and Finn's view of the Osborne family. Osborne reveals his past to Finn and together they manage to discover the truth about Finn's troubling incident - and also about the fierce disease of the wealthy class.

The film uses many clips of tribal activity during the film, drawing some disturbing parallels for some of the more challenging scenes. For this viewer that works well, but when the director elects to place tribal individuals in full regalia within the context of the Osborne estate, the concept feel contrived, as though the audience has to be forced to 'get it'. The various subplots between maid Jilly (Paz de la Huerta) and Finn and the introduction of an obese retarded chalk artist Whitney (Branden Williams) push the credibility edge of emphasizing the line between the wealthy and the 'lower class', but the performances by Sutherland, Lane, and Yelchin are strong enough to make us forgive the film's lapses. Not a great film but one with a lot of worthy ideas splashed around on the screen of a project that often feels lost in its struggle for direction. Grady Harp


this is an adaptation of a Dirk Wittenborn book, which I did not read. young Finn Earl lives with his Mom Liz (Diane Lane) in a cramped lower East Side New York Apartment. he dreams of joining his Anthropologist father studying a fierce tribe in South America. Liz has boyfriends and does coke. when he is caught scoring coke for her, one of her customers (Liz is a legitimate masseuse) a rich Mr. Osborne bails her out in return for being his full time personal masseuse in his huge estate in New Jersey. They are driven there in a limo with her strung out lying in the back seat with her dress hitched way up and panties showing. (this and a few low-cut dress scenes is the only exploitation of Ms. Lane. some may be disappointed but I'm sorry she had to do all that stuff in "Unfaithful" to make the A-List. That lady has more talent in her little finger than Streep, Roberts, and Sally Field do in their entire BODIES and its time she was given her due.) when they arrive Finn makes friends with Osbornes grandson Bryce, and has a coming of age with his new girlfriend, granddaughter Maya. Liz meanwhile joins AA and dates an AA doctor. She miraculously cleans up instantly. Finn however does a lot of drugs along with sex with his new friends. Bryce seems like an OK guy but gets jealous when Osborne takes Finn on a hot air balloon race instead of him, and this leads to tragedy.

the genius of the story, (and movie) is that they cut from the violent acts of the Fierce filthy rich Blysdale tribe to the Yanomano warriors. It's a little implausible though that when Liz finds out what happens to her son she merely demands action from Osborne and does not either contact the authorities or settle it Thelma and Louise style. there are elements of a Gothic Romance with a revelation by the village idiot. Also they do almost no plot or character development prior to the move to Blysdale. Liz, for instance, like Lane's Pearl Kantrowitz in "Walk on the Moon" had an unwanted pregnancy with Finn at 18 and felt trapped. This is in the book but not the movie. Still, these are minor shortcomings. The movie will be in full release 12/31/05 over a year after the original release date, and I just couldn't wait.

There were lots of Red Carpet moments in the theater I saw the movie at, with almost the whole cast...except Diane Lane!! $#%#Q$ Director Dunne said she was off filming a movie. I know she didn't promise to be there, but I came from way out of town and it would have been such a thrill to see her in person. The movie is a definite Best Picture contender, as for acting?? Sutherland was quite good, and so was the boy who played Finn. Lane was magnificent as always, but I only recall one or two emotional scenes, when she catches Finn with drugs "lets get f****d up together mother and son" and with Osborne "your twisted grandson...". She would fare better with a supporting actress nod but it wont work that way. unless they give it to her for a "body of work."


Went to the premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in NYC and I absolutely loved the film!!! I am Diane's #1 biggest fan and of course, as always, she gave a magnificent performance!! I have seen every single one of her movies and I must say that this is one of my new favorites. Diane was funny and moving and just took my breath away. Donald Sutherland was surprisingly humorous but also a good amount of serious. Anton Yelchin is just a wonderful young actor and gave an amazing performance. All in all, I recommend this film to anyone who can appreciate an excellent movie. 10 thumbs up!!! I would definitely go see it again and again and again. This is the best film of the year so far!!!


Returning from 20 years in China, a young missionary refuses to become THE CAT'S-PAW for a gang of hometown hoodlums.

This movie was a bit of a departure from Harold Lloyd's previous movies. Comedy derived more from dialogue, often rather serious, predominates here, rather than the elaborate sight gags which powered Harold's classics of the past. There are some splendid moments, however, which are pure visual fun, as when Harold attempts to follow a convertible down a crowded street, or when he desperately tries to keep a nightclub stripper from losing her clothes. There is also the climactic scene, set in a Chinatown basement, in which Harold gleefully jumps unabashedly into the darkest comedy. But most of the humor derives from Harold's refusal to be the patsy of the criminals who've run his hometown for years.

And it's quite a collection of crooked politicians & thugs Harold finds himself up against, played by a bevy of fine character actors: George Barbier, Nat Pendleton, Grant Mitchell, Edwin Maxwell, Alan Dinehart, Warren Hymer & stuttering Fuzzy Knight. Pert Una Merkel is on hand as the tobacco stand girl who catches Harold's eye and keeps him intrigued by her no-nonsense outlook on life.

Movie mavens will recognize Samuel S. Hinds as Harold's missionary father; Charles Sellon as an elderly Stockport clergyman; and Herman Bing as a German gangster--all uncredited. Also, showing up for only a few seconds as an attempted kidnapper, is Noah Young, a familiar face from Harold's silent films, here making his final appearance in a Lloyd picture.

Fox gave the film fine production values, especially in the opening scenes set in China.


It has to be admitted that the best work of Harold Lloyd ended with his last great silent comedy "Speedy" in 1928. After that he enters sound films (like Chaplin and Keaton and Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields) and does do better than Keaton, but not as well as the other three. Chaplin was rich enough to make his own films as producer (but he paced his films so there were five years between productions). Laurel & Hardy were under the protection of Hal Roach, so production standards for their shorts and sound films were pretty good. Fields first worked with Mack Sennett, than with Paramount, and then free-lanced. Lloyd tried the route that Chaplin took, but with less success.

He produced his own films, but unlike Chaplin he did not own his own studio. Also his first two choices were not good (especially "Feet First"). But he did begin to choose more wisely and "Movie Crazy", "The Cat's-Paw", and "The Milky Way" were all good choices. These three (and possibly "The Sin of Harold Diddlebock") were his best sound ventures. They are all entertaining, but none are up to "Safety Last", "The Freshman", "The Kid Brother", or "Speedy".

Of the top four sound films "The Cat's Paw" is the most controversial. Ezekiel Cobb's solution to ridding the city that elects him mayor is very extreme for the tastes of 2005. Or is it? When a movie is made dictates what it's politics are: "The Cat's Paw" is from 1934. That second year of the Roosevelt New Deal (itself rather controversial for heavier government involvement) movie audiences saw films like "Gabriel Over the White House" and "The Phantom President", where our leaders did extra-Constitutional actions to rid the nation of internal enemies (and to force disarmament around the globe). Even Cecil B. De Mille got into this act with "This Day and Age", where a bunch of teenagers use rats to force a gangster to confess his crimes.

To us, the use of violence to force anyone (even a bunch of goons and boodlers like Alan Dinehart's gang) to confess is repellent. After all, the Supreme Court has protected us from confession under duress. What we forget is that the reforms we are thinking of did not occur until the Warren Court and the Burger Court made them. For example, although Mr. Justice Sutherland's opinion in the Powell ("Scottsboro Boys") Case of 1932 guaranteed every criminal defendant had a right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright did not extend this to ordering court paid counsel to defendants until 1962. The Miranda Case, with it's now well-known anti-self-incrimination warning is from 1963. Nothing like this were considered necessary in 1934.

If you study other movies of the period up to 1954 (and even to 1960) tricks are used to get confessions - Kirk Douglas confesses his crimes in front of witnesses in "I Walk Alone" while Burt Lancaster holds a gun to him. When Lancaster leaves, Douglas sneers about confessing under duress, only to see the gun is unloaded. Suddenly he realizes that (legally - in 1948) he has confessed without duress. Hate to say it, to any civil libertarians reading this note, but what Cobb/Lloyd does to Dinehart and his pals in the conclusion of "The Cat's Paw" was not only legal, but would have led to their jail sentences in 1934. We may call it heavy handed, fascistic, or horrid, but it would have worked legally when it was thought up.


What is often neglected about Harold Lloyd is that he was an actor. Unlike Chaplin and Keaton, Lloyd didn't have the Vaudeville/Music Hall background and he wasn't a natural comedian. He came to Hollywood to act; and he discovered he had a knack for acting funny -- first in shorts, then in features. He made a name for himself as "Lonesome Luke", a Chaplin knock-off; with the "glasses character" that made him the all-American boy rather than a grotesque, Lloyd found his stride and his movies became some of the best produced during the silent era.

He developed a reputation as a "daredevil" in some shorts, and retained this in some of his best movies ("Safety Last", "For Heaven's Sake", "Girl Shy"). He was more popular than either Chaplin or Keaton during the twenties and he became very rich before the advent of sound.

The first sound movies were often disasters. To get the most out of their "sound", too much dialog was used in many movies.

Lloyd's acting skills were, after two decades, geared for silents. He didn't have a bad voice; its high pitch suited his "glasses" character. And his sound films weren't the unqualified disasters of legend. Yet silent movies had been raised to a high art (especially Lloyd's, which did not stint on budget and were extremely well-crafted); with the introduction of talkies movies had to learn to walk again and they made some missteps.

Though he tried to move with the times and embraced sound, Lloyd's best bits from his early (overly talky) talkies were still visual -- such as the scene in "Movie Crazy" where he appears to be riding in a swank car, but actually "hitched a ride" on his bicycle.

Trying to recapture the daredevil antics that made him famous, as he did in "Feet First", was misstep. (In "Safety Last", his best movie and the one that, deservedly or not, shoved Lloyd in the box as a "daredevil comic", he played a determined young man, climbing to the top. "Safety Last" had a natural structure that ascended to his character's scaling the side of the building. He was obviously afraid, but his fear added to the humor. In "Feet First", he arrived in a precarious building-scaling position by accident; his frantic cries for help detracted from the humor. His character was pathetic and cringing, aspiration to save his neck -- possibly an accurate statement of the 1930s, but not amusing).

Harold Lloyd was not mired in the past, like some wacky Norma Desmond. He embraced sound and tried to take his movies in different directions, growing and changing with the industry. When "Feet First" failed he left the daredevil business and made a satire on the talking movie industry, "Movie Crazy". Just as he had to flounder through many movies as "Lonesome Luke" before carving his place in movie history with the glasses character, he had tried several directions in sound movies before hitting his stride in sound, which he did with "The Catspaw".

In "The Catspaw" he plays a missionary's son reared in China who unwittingly gets elected mayor as a front for corrupt political interests. When he finds out the truth, he sets himself the task of cleaning up the town. Only in his early forties, Lloyd could still act the brash young man.

Yet "The Catspaw" was another box-office failure, and Lloyd made only three more movies, including "The Milky Way". Of his chief competitors, Chaplin still had silent movies in him and Keaton was hopelessly mismanaged. "The Catspaw" and "The Milky Way" suggest Lloyd might have mastered sound comedy if he had been a little younger, or if audiences had given him the benefit of the doubt after his early sound fiascoes.

Though the movie has been unfairly maligned about the way Lloyd's character cleaned up the town, it suits him. From his days in "shorts" Lloyd wanted to scare his audience, and the climax of "The Catspaw" achieved it yet again, in a surprising way; until the trick is revealed it appears gruesome, and then come the laughs.

Viewed as a product of its time, "The Catspaw" is charming and funny. A very well-written sound comedy, well-acted by Lloyd. Directed by Sam Taylor, its curious blend of drama and sly humor make it look almost like a Frank Capra or Preston Sturges comedy.


As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).

This film is a "hoot" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).

One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" - kissing, etc).

This is a Must-See film!


This movie caught me by surprise. For years I have avoided many of Harold Lloyd's sound pictures (as well as those of Keaton) because they have a generally well-deserved reputation for being lousy compared to the silent films because the basic formula has been lost. However, when I saw this film I was pleasantly surprised to find I actually liked it,...once I accepted it really was not a "Harold Lloyd" film (despite him starring in it). This is because although it is nothing like the style of his earlier films, it IS highly original and Lloyd isn't bad playing a totally different type of character.

As I mentioned above, the formula of the old films is almost completely missing here. Lloyd does not do the old familiar stunt work, the romance is quite unlike his early screen romances, and the plot is just plain weird! Instead of the usual roles, he is the son of a Chinese missionary who returns to America for the first time since he was a small boy. Because of this, though he looks like an American (except for his white suit and explorer's helmet), he thinks and acts a lot like someone who is Chinese. In many ways, he's very naive about America and is like an innocent among wolves. Early on, he meets a man who turns out to be a local party boss. This boss ALWAYS produces a losing candidate for the mayoral race--because he is bought and paid for by the corrupt mayor to produce a "token" candidate who has NO CHANCE of winning. Well, the old geezer who they traditionally run for office just died and he decides to run the naive Lloyd--he hasn't a prayer of winning! Well, the unthinkable happens and Lloyd wins!!! This, and Lloyd's decision to clean up the town greatly upsets the old political machine and they stop at nothing to destroy honest Lloyd. Just when it appears Lloyd is headed to jail on a trumped up corruption charge, he creates a scheme that is 100% impossible and very illegal to get signed confessions from the crooks. However, despite this, it is incredibly funny and a great ending. So, my advice is at the end, just suspend disbelief and enjoy.

An important note: This movie is definitely NOT politically correct. The word "Chink" is used repeatedly. I found it offensive but considering the times, I ignored it as you should too. If, however, you are someone who CAN'T and like being angry, I suggest you never watch movies anyway--as you are bound to become offended again and again.


For those of you looking for the crazy stunts that typified a Harold Lloyd silent comedy, this is not the film for you. What The Cat's-Paw gives us is an interesting and atypical character for Lloyd who was trying to establish himself in sound.

For me the closest movie comparison to Lloyd's character is that of Peter Sellers in Being There. For all the education that Lloyd has received in dealing with the world, he might as well have been brought up in isolation as Sellers was.

But where he was brought up was as a missionary's child in China and I don't know how much Christianity he and his family were able to teach the Chinese, but young Harold has learned the wisdom of Chinese philosopher Lin Po whom he quotes constantly like a fortune cookie aphorism. As it turns out Lin Po turns out to be one wise dude.

Anyway Lloyd's father Samuel S. Hinds has decided his son needs some education in the modern world of 20th century America and he sends him back to be the guest of the pastor of the home church which sponsors the mission. The pastor there is the perennial candidate of the 'reform' movement of that town of Stockport. But no sooner does Lloyd arrive and the pastor dies.

Now the reform movement is a sham and the pastor a patsy of the political bosses who need a straw-man opponent in every election. They decide Lloyd just might be a better patsy than the guy who just died.

Of course as it goes in these type of films the patsy proves to be not so easy a proposition. In fact Lloyd constantly quoting from Lin Po, the way Charlie Chan used to dispense wisdom proves quite the adversary for the crooks who run Stockport. In addition Lloyd gains the admiration of Una Merkel, as cynical a dame as Jean Arthur was in Mr. Deeds and Mr. Smith.

The Cat's-Paw is still a nice political satire though it did not establish Harold Lloyd as big a comedy name as he was in silent films. A nice cast of players was selected by director Sam Taylor topped by George Barbier who plays a political boss who discovers Lloyd and actually proves to have a streak of honesty in him.


_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.


A documentary about a nomadic tribe in Tibet going out to a dry lake to get salt does not sound very appealing. But this is not a popcorn movie but a visual cultural feast whereby you partake of a rapidly vanishing morsel of humanity. The superstitions, the epic songs and poetry, the faith of a people who truly believe in following their own unique patterns of life are something the West had in the times of Homer but that is now, unfortunately, completely foreign to most of us in the "developed" world. We have lost the spiritual serenity that comes from following well established patterns of life, often with dire mental consequences in our increasingly soulless society. The film makers have woven us intimately into the fabric of these materially poor but spiritually rich and scrappy saltmen. And made us see that there was more to life than the shopping mall and pop culture. So disconnect your land lines, turn off your cells, turn off the driveway lights and sit back and ease yourself into a timeless adventure.


I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.


This is a beautifully filmed movie that questions the future of all indigenous peoples, especially nomadic tribesmen. Focusing on the Saltmen of Tibet, the film moves at pace that may make some western viewers uncomfortable. For some peoples, life still proceeds at the same pace which it has for thousands of years. This film follows a group of tribesmen on their annual two month quest to get salt. Their tribe lives its life in a traditional manner (slowly by modern standards) and always accounting to their many gods. This is a remarkable film, one which will preserve a piece of what may, unfortunately, become history. Well worth the time. Don't be in a rush when you see it.


An apt description by Spock of an all-powerful fop into whose clutches fall the crew of the Enterprise. This was one sector of space our starship should have avoided: first Sulu & Kirk simply disappear off the bridge; a landing party follows them to the surface of an unknown planet and encounter Trelane, a seemingly aristocratic man dressed in attire from an Earth of many centuries past. But he demonstrates abilities of someone or something far beyond human and doesn't register on McCoy's medical tricorder. The officers manage to escape back to the ship but, like some bad cosmic penny, Trelane keeps popping up. He brings them all back, including some female companionship, to continue his games. The dilemma now takes on elements of 'The Most Dangerous Game' out in space and there's an exasperating, even infuriating aspect to the crew's utter helplessness before such unbridled power.

What really makes this a great episode is the memorable performance by guest star Campbell as the overpowering but not all-knowing alien. His character is obviously an early version of Q, who was introduced 20 years later in the pilot for the TNG series. Trelane's confrontation scene with Spock stands out among all the strange drama which unfolds. As usual, Kirk quickly begins to look for possible weaknesses in his new nemesis, despite being quite outmatched. The answers to exactly what or who Trelane is are right in front of us the whole time so, when we do learn the truth, it makes complete sense in view of Campbell's pitch-perfect acting. He indulges himself constantly, preening before some unknown audience, remarking on things with a flair which is infectious but not quite right - we can't quite pin it down at first, but there's something missing here. Every few minutes, his tone becomes sinister and the crew now appears to be in serious danger. In a way, you can't take your eyes off him, always waiting to see what he does next. Actor John de Lancie captured that similar tone as Q on the Next Generation series.


In "The Squire of Gothos", Kirk and his crew encounter a powerful super-being, who keeps the Captain, "Bones" and a few crewmembers captive for no apparent reason. I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Star Trek episode I ever saw and the program that made me hungry for more. It is not one of the best episodes, but the rock-solid premise of an alien being who putting the Enterprise's crew in a corner, is the kind of situation that makes the show so much fun to watch. In a way, the super-humanoid anticipates one of Star Trek's most famous characters, Next Generation's enigmatic "Q". This episode is also memorable for creating a unique situation: it is the first time Uhura is part of the action and the story allows the viewer to see what an endearing character Uhuara can be when the story allows her. Too bad the show never fully explored this iconic figure.


I did enjoy watching Squire Trelane jerk around the crew in this episode, though after a while the whole thing just seemed a little too long. Sure, the histrionics were kind of funny for a while, and the ending was a pretty good way to wrap the whole thing together. I think the problem was that I enjoyed seeing Trelane when he was full of bravado and fun, the fun seemed to vanish when Trelane became vindictive and nasty. Talk about a mood killer--going from the obnoxious but affable host to the guy sentencing Kirk to death! But, despite this, the episode was enjoyable and worth my time. For die-hard Trekkies, this is a must-see, for others it's just a pretty run of the mill one.


General Trelayne is a super-being who wants to play a little game with the crew of the Enterprise. A lot of extremely unlikely and nonsensical stuff seems to be happening, and Trelayne seems obsessed with the human practices of warfare and murder. He seems to need to experience what he imagines to be a thrill and has created a human environment (though a few hundred years out of date) in which to play out his fantasies. The environment is subtly inauthentic, and the crew immediately begins to spot the inconsistencies. Pretty soon it becomes clear that Trelayne is not just an immature god, but a very fallible one. Regardless of how you feel about this one, stick around for the Twilight Zone-like ending. It is well worth it.

As many have pointed out, Trelayne's character inspired the more developed and amusing on-going character Q - and you can see in John DeLancie's construction of that personality more than just shades of Campbell's Trelayne. It is fun to compare how the four captains we have seen coping with Q all deal with him so radically differently.


The Squire of Gothos is one of the "sillier" episodes of Star Trek, and therefore one of the most entertaining ones. The entertainment factor is, generally speaking, fueled by the stand-off between William Shatner and the episode's hilarious guest star, William Campbell.

During an unspecified routine mission, Sulu suddenly vanishes into thin air, and Kirk follows soon after-wards. Spock immediately begins looking for his missing colleagues (and, though he'd hate to admit it, friends), while the two stranded crewmen must deal with the mysterious, all-powerful, flamboyant Trelane (Campbell), the self-proclaimed Squire of Gothos, a being capable of creating or destroying anything he wants through the sheer power of his mind.

At first sight, the plot may seem recycled from previous episodes (honestly, are there any sci-fi shows that didn't feature at least one God-like character), but that feeling vanishes pretty quickly thanks to the script's winning use of exaggerated humor, all conveyed through Campbell's deliberately camp performance: his Trelane is essentially the Trek version of a spoiled child in the body of an adult, while his ignorance-fueled curiosity for the human race (his knowledge is quite limited) probably served as inspiration for Gene Roddenberry when he came up with the character of Q for the Next Generation pilot, some two decades after this episode aired.

In short, the key to appreciating The Squire of Gothos is this: "silly" doesn't necessarily equal "bad".


When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is.


This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper. The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous violence, sex and the "f" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10!


I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!


I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic


We went to see Manna from Heaven, my husband, two friends, and I and we all enjoyed the film. The characters are funny, the story is amusing and so much like real life. I think that is what I liked most, just seeing something believable, no murders, no sci-fi, just good, clean fun. It is something you could take your children or elderly parents to and not worry. How many of those are around anymore!!


In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!!

In what could best be described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.

Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.

From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.

Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time!

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long!


`Manna From Heaven' is a delightfully compelling film.

Within the shifting paradox of values in middle-class Americans from 40 years ago to the present day, the plot tweaks the concerns and hopes of an interesting range of `Damon Runyonesque' characters.<br /><br />Their struggles with moral dilemmas, dotting on `what might have been,' hopes to yet fulfill youthful dreams, romantic yearnings, and `hit it big' combine to make a most entertaining film. Rather than relying upon `in-your- face' sexual explicitness, the burgeoning relationship between Inez and Mac/Bake is classically subtle but clear. His untying the knot in her shoelace at the Art Gallery and their heat in their poker game is outstanding

The script's crisp writing is skillfully interpreted by an outstanding star and supporting cast. One of the few films I have ever fone to see twice in its opening run, `Manna From Heaven' definitely warrants national distribution.

Conrad F. Toepfer


As a native of the city where the story takes place, Buffalo, NY, it's fun to see the local sites but the story line is so local and fun, too!

The small scale promoting of this film requires strong word of mouth to accomplish the wide viewing it deserves. Please make this film the success the Big, Fat Greek Wedding was.


Being from the Buffalo area I was well aware of the movie having read many articles in local publications. I was most impressed with the movie, especially its clever plot, the acting and the local scenes. Nice to see so many older, quality stars in the various roles. I feel that especially those of us over 50 will find the movie excellent and you can leave the theater feeling that your time was well spent.


I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America does like positive, upbeat films.


What a great cast for this movie. The timing was excellent and there were so many clever lines-several times I was still laughing minutes after they were delivered. I found Manna From Heaven to have some surprising moments and while there were things I was thinking would happen, the way they came together was anything but predictable. This movie is about hope and righting wrongs. I left the theater feeling inspired to do the right thing. Bravo to the Five Sisters.


Manna from Heaven is heavenly. This is a movie for the family -- teens and grandparents can enjoy it together. But it isn't syrupy sweet or silly. The characters really are "characters". The plot is somewhat complex and you have to pay attention, but it's like putting a puzzle together as it all falls into place bit by bit. The period beginning is like watching an old photo album, or remembering back when. It's extremely well done with very accurate hairstyles and costumes. The story moves along quickly with twists, turns and lots of fun.

A special treat is to watch the large cast of familiar faces, many of whom we haven't seen in much too long a time. Part of the fun is to recognize and name them mentally as they appear, though this can be distracting. Cloris Leachman by the end of the film looks as if she's had a make-over on "Oprah". I had never seen Faye Grant in a movie -- only knew her as Grace's mother in the TV series "Saving Grace". She was great, even minus the southern accent. And I didn't even recognize Shelly Duvall. The five sisters who created this very lovely film are a very talented quintet and Sister Theresa is a heavenly treasure.


Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are left walking out of the theater asking, "Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, "they expect you to take the silverware," when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President, Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast.


My wife and I struggle to find movies like this that are clean and yet enjoyable for adults. If you can't find a cinema that is playing it, call your cinema and request it. Bravo, Five Sisters Productions for courage, tenacity and creative endeavor!


I didn't know much about this movie going in- my roommate kind of dragged me into it. I was so pleasantly surprised! The plot really grabbed my attention and held it, and the characters are well-drawn and realistic. The screenplay is very clever and funny, and the cast does great things with it. And the best part is that it managed to be entertaining without any explicit sex or violence! If this movie comes anywhere into your area you really should go see it- stand up for this little film, it is worth it!


If Hollywood had the wellbeing of the audience at heart we would see 20 films a year with the kind of wholesome fortitude that is behind this film. There are several experiences of personal growth in this movie and while the characters ARE still very human even the lessons learned are not that greed will profit you, or do-unto-others-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-you-are-okay-with-it, no, this is what our sad, desensitized lives need, more sense... more love... more do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you... more HOPE. (thanks Ursula!) This movie has an intelligent wit, not "yo' mama" cracks that run rampant in the so-called comedies. People need to feel good. This movie will make you feel good and possibly inspire you to better your life, and the lives of others. sidenote Every person counts in ticket sales. This is a truly independent film. If you want more quality films you have to support them.


At a time when Hollywood thinks that louder, faster, and bloodier are better, Manna From Heaven is comedic and touching look at something we've all thought about: What would I do if a load of money fell from the sky.

Interestingly, it took the characters many years to realize that the money hadn't made a single difference in their lives. They all become what they were destined to be. Unfortunately, in most cases, what they became was unhappy, in spite of their good fortune all those years ago.

While Manna offers the familiar Hollywood storyline of Good vs. Evil, or in the case, Generosity vs Greed, what sets this film apart is that Good wins out by converting Evil, not by crushing it.

I think the important message of this film is that you can change the world... even if you do it one person at a time.


Witticisms, colorful characters, family relationships, coping with hardships, living with fun and humor. This film has it all and more. What a great 'every man (and woman)' story, with a top notch plot and script. It offers just clean fun, lots of laughter, many smiles and pure entertainment for the whole family. Other reviewers describe the story some. I'll just offer this comparison teaser  it's part "Best of Show," "Grumpy Old Men," "Millions," and some other comedy and life flicks rolled into one.

This gem of a film most likely had limited release and is probably not very available to rent. But, it's now out on DVD and I highly recommend it for purchase. If you like good old-fashioned fun and entertaining films for the family, you can't miss with "Manna from Heaven." This film is a sure fire cure for the blues or to chase the gloom away on nasty weather days or rough times.


Inspired casting, charming and witty throughout. Much like the currency in the opening moments of the film, the story floats along magically until you are emotionally "invested" in its outcome. The city of Buffalo has never looked better! Kudos to the Burton Sisters and the entire cast for a job well done.


Saw the movie last night w/o knowing anything about it (nothing else out seemed interesting and I had a Buffalo connection to this movie - UB grad). It was a very enjoyable movie. Liked the pace (it picks up after a slow beginning) and story. Well written plot and good character development and relationships. Highly recommend it to anyone who likes to see movies that have interesting stories. Found myself talking about this movie afterwards over a few beers - most discussions don't last more than a few minutes.


I thoroughly enjoyed Manna from Heaven. The hopes and dreams and perspectives of each of the characters is endearing and we, the audience, get to know each and every one of them, warts and all. And the ending was a great, wonderful and uplifting surprise! Thanks for the experience; I'll be looking forward to more.


Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is great.

If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the tunes.


Manna From Heaven is a light comedy that uses exaggeration of human foibles to entertain the audience. Throughout the film there is the expectation that goodness will surface in each situation. The result is that the movie goer finds himself/herself sitting with this silly grin on his/her face, peace in his/her heart, and high expectations for human kind. Watching this movie was a most pleasant experience. (I would venture to say uplifting experience, but some would say that sounds corny!!)


This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!!


No bullets, no secret agents, a story that is entertaining, funny, and believable. Met some of the producers/actors in this film at the theater. They seemed as interesting in person as their characters on screen. You may not hear about this movie on TV with high-dollar ad spots, but it is definitely worth checking out. I have spent $8 for a movie ticket on a lot of other movies that weren't this entertaining. Looking forward to future projects by this production company.


Really enjoyed Manna From Heaven. If you liked My Big Fat Greek Wedding you will like this too! Once the story line is set it begins to keep you guessing the outcome. I think we'll be hearing more from Five Sisters Productions. I know I'll be watching for their next movie.


MANNA FROM HEAVEN is a terrific film that is both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. You know that the characters after finding out that the so-called "Gift From God" was actually a loan, will pay back the money and that everyone will be happy at the end, but how they get there is not as obvious. The scenes are often funny and occasionally touching as the characters evaluate their lives and where they are going. The cast of veteran actors are more than just a nostalgia trip. Frank Gorshin, Shirley Jones, and Cloris Leachman prove that they are capable of more than playing the Riddler, Mother Partridge, or Mary's friend Phyllis while Jill Eikenberry and Wendie Malick play characters different than we have seen on their TV series. Ursula Burton's portrayal of the nun is both touching and funny at the same time with out making fun of nuns or the church. If you are looking for a movie with a terrific cast, some good music(including a Shirley Jones rendition of "The Way You Look Tonight"), and an uplifting ending, give this one a try. I don't think you will be disappointed.


This was really a pleasure to see; the dialogue was - for the most part - absolutely outstanding (I thought the women's roles were a little better written, which is a nice surprise). The performances were uniformly very good, too. Frank Gorshin overdoes it a little when he goes into his various cons, but this might be his overcompensating for what I see as weaknesses in how the character is written; he's VERY good otherwise. Harry Groener does similarly well with a slightly underwritten character (Tony), overdoing some of the character's angrier scenes slightly. Ursula Burton is excellent as Sister Theresa, really carrying the film through some of its weaknesses. Seymour Cassel and Louise Fletcher are a little underused here, though I liked their work as always. Shirley Jones, Wendie Malick, Jill Eikenberry and Faye Grant are very good also (I couldn't help thinking Grant reminded me a little of Catherine O'Hara here); Cloris Leachman rather tears into her role, with reasonably good results.

I wish there had been more of a sure hand behind the camera, though. Sometimes the framing or staging seemed a bit off, or awkward. The closeups seemed overused (or erratically used) to me. And we don't always go from scene to scene as smoothly as we'd like. Some of the "tough guy" approach to the federal agent (music, costuming) was too over the top for me as well. And the few fantasy sequences didn't really work. But there are things that were VERY well done; the opening sequence set in Buffalo around 1970, for example. And, frankly, all of the scenes regarding Theresa's church work (I suspect the writer and actress liked the character a lot, which helps). The scenes between Malick and Eikenberry are VERY good.

The plot is probably a bit overcontrived - there seem to be a few too many schemes going on at once to keep them all straight at times, and the coincidences got to be a little too much. And I was a little bothered by the ending (should we REALLY be rooting for their biggest con yet to succeed?), but the ride along the way is very enjoyable. It would be nice to see more independent movies like this one made.

7 of 10


1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.

At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.

It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way.


The remarkable, sometimes infuriating, often brilliant films of John Cassavetes occupy a unique position in American cinema Low-budget, partly improvised, inspired by cinéma verité documentary, and related to underground film, they have nevertheless frequently managed to reach a wide and profoundly appreciative audience

After drama studies, the young Cassavetes quickly made his name as an unusually unrefined, intense actor, often appearing in films about disaffected, rebellious youth such as "Crime in the Streets" and "Edge of the City."

Setting up an actors' workshop, he worked to transform an improvisational experiment into his feature debut The result, "Shadows," taking three years to complete and partly financed by his performances in TV's Johnny Staccato, was a breakthrough in American cinema About the effect of racism on an already fraught relationship between two black men and their sister, two of whom pass for white, the film is impressive for its irregular, seemingly formless style and naturalistic performances Plot was minimal, mood and emotional apparent truth were everything


I had never seen a film by John Cassavetes up until two years ago, when I first saw THE KILLING OF A Chinese BOOKIE in a Berlin cinema, which I found interesting, to put it diplomatically, but not so special, I instantly wanted to see more of his work. Since then, I tried - with an emphasis on tried - watching his other work, SHADOWS in particular. I must admit, it took me a a while before I actually enjoyed the film. At first the unpolished, raw and improvised way Cassavetes it was shot, put me off somewhat and I thought of it as an original - absolutely - but flawed and dated experiment. But now, upon reviewing, these little imperfections make it look so fresh, even today.

Shot on a minimal budget of $40,000 with a skeleton six person crew, SHADOWS offers an observation of the tensions and lives of three siblings in an African-American family in which two of the three siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers) and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), are light-skinned and able to pass for white. Cassavetes demanded that the actors retain their real names to reflect the actual conflicts within the group but saw the film as being concerned with human problems as opposed imply to racial ones. Cassavetes shot the film in ten minute takes and jagged editing, a reaction against 'seamless' Hollywood production values. Cassavetes main inspiration - at least in the cinematic style the film was shot - were the Italian neo-realists whilst also professing admiration for Welles' pioneering spirit. The use of amateurs and improvisation might resemble some of the Italian neo-realist directors, but with his bebop score by Charles Mingus ans Shafi Hadi, the film feels very different, very American, unlike anything made before really.

The song with the feathered girls, "I feel like a lolly-pop" (or something) feels like light years back to me, ancient history. But no matter how dated it might look, it still makes a delightful time capsule of late Fifties New York today. I think it's this is one of the first films made aspiring filmmakers realize they could shoot an independent film, without Hollywood, improvised and without a real budget. Seymour Cassel, who acted and was involved in SHADOWS, claims it was Jules Dassin's THE NAKED CITY (1948) that was the first and inspired them all, but I think this was the one that really opened the eyes of aspiring independent American filmmakers.

Camera Obscura --- 8/10


John Cassavette's decided as his first film, obviously as one shot on a shoestring in New York, to not even have a script with dialog, and delivers a 1959 feature equivalent of Larry David's Curb Your Enthusiasm- all the actors know what to do and say and even have the right look in their eyes when they talk. In other words, it's one of the most realistic looks at the beat generation, jazzed sweetly in it's score and telling a tale of racial tensions. A group of black siblings are the center-point, with one trying to get better gigs than the average strip-club, and has a sister, much more light-skinned than him, who gets entwined with a white man in a relationship, which shatters both sides. The film, however, isn't exclusively about that; Cassavettes likes to have his characters wander around New York City (which not many films did in 1959/1960) and his style of storytelling is like that of the improvisational jazz artists of the day. Dated, to be sure, but worth a glance for film buffs; Martin Scorsese named this as one of his heaviest influences.


It ends with the declaration that "the film you have just seen was an improvisation"-at once making you feel like an idiot for thinking an improvisation was an good movie, and astounded at Cassavetes' genius...once again. Of course, Cassavetes told some guy it wasn't really an improvisation per se, on his deathbed, so...it's the story about a light-skinned black woman, Lelia, who passes for white, and her family: another passing-for-white brother named Ben, and a black-black brother named Hughie. When she falls in love with a white jerk named Tony, he is unpleasantly surprised when he finds out she's black, and from there it goes on about the three main characters' individual aspirations and shortcomings. Hughie is a jazz singer in the process of becoming a failure, Lelia's still hopelessly depressed over Tony, and Ben is angsty and violent in general, in desperate need of something to shock him out of his stale patterns of existence. Overall, I suppose it's really about stasis vs. change in human life. I suspect that Cassavetes had the plot organized enough, and it was just the dialogue that was improvised. The dialogue itself is very uneven - sometimes somebody will say something very memorable, other times it's memorably awkward. What's amazing is the extent of the amateur actors' embodiment of their characters. Cassavetes went through the acting class he was teaching at the time he decided to do Shadows, whispered in the ears of the ten best students, and this was the result...the guys playing Ben and Hughie are very good. At first I didn't like Lelia, but as the film progressed you see more and more she's one of those actors who gets better as the tension and drama builds - not necessarily the best with small talk. Shadows is hailed by many as the forerunner of the indie film movement (made in 1959) and it's definitely recommended.


1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film.


In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.

One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.

In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.

The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.