Don't forget the lover on the side!! She is a 'hottie', Karen Parsons is delicious, she is wonderful, in acting and beauty and style. It's just his Job! HO, well now here is a show that the writing slugs you in the gut and while your doubled over, kicks you in the butt! In quoting Peter's wife,(The Associate/ writer/ Producer) she said when they were watching the 'previews' for up coming 'new' shows at an ABC network party, she looked at her husband after the preview for 'the Job' played and said, "This doesn't look like anything else that is on this network. You guys are in trouble." Meaning, it 'looks' very good! But it's not looking like the regular 'shiny happy people sitcom' fare or over-hair-styled drama that they (ABC) are regularly comfortable putting on the 'Air". From the time I saw this, after the first episode finished, I made sure that I didn't miss that time slot next week. I was instantly addicted to "The Job" Cutting wit and cynicism, outrageous situations, and laughter rolling writers makes this series a Hit!!

Then I felt anger and a feeling of being let down, that the show just sailed off the air. I wondered what executive, made that decision to tear down a major comedy cornerstone for their network?

I talked to other people about it some knowing, some not, but I know that the stupid network didn't promote this hard enough, or I should say visually enough. If they had it would have run at least 3-5 seasons, maybe even six. I just believe that knowing network short comings and being overly subscribing to one 'formula' or another that they missed the boat with this one. There was so much room for expansion, it had barely just begun. The situations were funny and serious, fast and sometimes slow, though not much it kept a good pace. some years later, I finally found it on DVD new for $50.00. To me it would be worth $1,000.00 to have this in my entertainment library. I watched in amazement as I went through both seasons again for the third time on DVD and the ending 'Betrayal' episode, was going into a total serious drama segment with them uncovering a murder victim, it was better than most of the drama 'victim Unit' and 'cop' shows on the air now!!! They went into the scenes as serious as a heart attack and as believable, did so as if not even skipping a beat. Just like it was meant to be serious, I am so impressed with the 'versatile ways' that Tolan and Leary shared in the story-lines and scripts.

In another outrage of the 'entertainment week' I learned that the beautiful wardrobe, of silk ties and expensive suits with pressed shirts and ultra stylish footwear...was all sold to the movie made for cable "In the cut" (2003) for only four hundred dollars, thats it!!!! I'm sick. Did you see what they all wear for each show?? A good over coat alone could run that much.

This was Denis Leary at some of his finest. I recommend this great cop 'dramedy' for East-coasters or wherever you are in this country. I even heard that people from Ireland were joking with Leary the 'Bathroom' episode, repeating lines back to him from that one, because they saw it over there. (****) A Superbly intuitive, comedic New York Leary/Tolan cop Show.


Denis Leary can indeed be funny and clever at times and is always likable, but this takes the cake! This show showed Leary's genius.

The Job is set in New York. Leary plays Mike McNeil, a hard-nosed detective who is married, has a occasional drug problem, and has a girlfriend. McNeil has serious attitude. So much he's dripping in it. The precinct is filled with funny, interesting and likable characters besides McNeil. An excellent cast too. All of the episodes in this show are really funny and are addictive. The one liners in this show are everywhere. You'll be in stitches after hearing them and still laugh about them a few minutes after and then some. The cases the precinct deals with are something else to stripper nuns, a bathroom hostage situation, and more are over the top. This show was too good. Could have grown legs to last many more seasons.

The Last Word: A great, fantastic show. I miss this show dearly. All episodes of this show are great. You get even belly-laughs...a lot. ABC made a huge mistake by giving this the ax. Too bad Leary did not revive the show for cable TV. Still, I give this show one of my highest of recommendations. Truly a one of a kind show.


This type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode!


My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.

I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.

I was wrong.

This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.

Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.

This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time.


If someone had nudged me about 15 minutes into 'Ray' and asked what I thought of Jamie Foxx in the title role, it would have been time for a blank stare. After all, what is this (fictitious) person talking' about? That wasn't Jamie Foxx up on the big screen. That was Ray Charles. This is one of the best performances by anybody in recent years. Like the soundtrack, Jamie as Ray is flat-out brilliant.

The blind Genius of Soul (who took a revolutionary step of mixing gospel with R&B) died during production. The movie about his troubled life is good, not great. Taylor Hackford's direction and James L. White's script follow the well-worn biopic outline. Super-talented youngster battles adversity, achieves greatness while also self-destructing, then picks himself up out of the gutter for a happy ending. The film shows Charles' flaws (heroin abuse, chronic womanizing, persistent bastard-fathering) even as it sucks you in with his beautiful music.

Kerry Washington and Regina King play the main women in Ray's life, one his long-suffering wife and the other his longtime mistress. Both actresses match Foxx stride for stride. What takes him to a different level, though, is his deep understanding and uncanny impersonation of the great musician. The entire cast is effective, especially Sharon Warren as his headstrong mother and Curtis Armstrong as a music exec. Hackford's stars are likely to be rewarded with trophies and---better yet---more starring roles.

I was not a Ray Charles aficionado before 'Ray'. Apparently, the film has left out a lot (as do all biopics), but this picture functions as both an old-fashioned crowd pleaser AND a dark investigation of a brilliant/troubled man. For those who whine that Foxx doesn't actually sing (as if that somehow diminishes his performance), take a hike. No mere actor can sing like Mr. Charles anyway. You can't have everything. What the talented star does in this picture is about as close to "everything" as we'll probably see for a while.


First of all, it is sheer joy to hear the legend perform such wonderful and timeless music. This movie and soundtrack is a tour de force. Ray Charles is unique and amazing. I truly adored the film as it was inspiring and entertaining throughout.

Jamie Foxx has become one of the premiere actors in Hollywood as is clearly shown in Ray and he should get an Oscar for this role, it is unprecedented. In fact, everyone who worked on this film should receive accolades. I really liked Kerry Washington who played the exceptional wife...Ray Charles obviously married well. Regina King is a fine actress as well as the extraordinary Sharon Warren who plays a struggling young mother.

In all honesty, I'd say this whole project was providentially arranged. The entire cast was perfect, great screenplay and awesome settings...major props to the director Taylor Hackford and crew for doing such a splendid job in bringing the life of Ray Charles to the screen so flawlessly. This is my picture of the year, certainly one of the best biographical films ever made.


This is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I took me to a new time and place. It was as though I was right there with Ray through his many trials and triumphs. Jamie Foxx transformed himself into Ray. During the movie he was Ray. Also, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson and Regina King were superb. The movie was well cast and directed, the music was fantastic.

I've seen the movie four (4) times with different people and the last time was just as enjoyable as the first time. I will buy the DVD as soon as it is released. This is a movie that will viewed over and over for years to come.

Thank you for a great experience.


This movie has inspired me to be a better person. In life you don't know who you will run across and sometimes our prejudice will cause us to prejudge a person wrongly. I have learned to give a person the benefit of the doubt because of this movie. I also learned that tough love can build a stronger person. Now I want to know where to find the movie soundtrack. There are songs in this soundtrack I have been trying to get for years. May I comment on the acting for a second. Jamie Fox was outstanding. The man has risen to be the actor of actors. Also the performance of Regina King was awesome. If I can get a woman to look at me the way she looked at Ray...I can only dream. I plucked down $18.00 for this movie and I don't have a lot of money but I am willing to see this movie again and again. This movie touched me.


Taylor Hackford wanted to make this movie for 15 years, and finally found Jamie Foxx to play the title role. Foxx is amazing in his portrayal of Ray Charles. From an interview I saw with Foxx, he met Charles several times and the two of them also played piano together (Foxx had piano lessons as a young child and actually played piano in all his scenes). I didn't see Charles live until his later years, so it was great to get a perspective on how his career developed. I hope Foxx gets nominated for the Best Actor Oscar as he certainly deserves it. The music, also, is incredible - it really showcases the breadth of Charles' music, from country to blues, and everything in between. The movie also gives an unblemished account of Ray Charles' life, from the many women he had relationships with to his drug habit and the consequences of that.


Let's get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.

Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.

P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there!


The year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.

And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.

The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.

A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, "Sing my Song for You" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art.


Jamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues/soul/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.

This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it.

Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:

GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going "country" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.

BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.

The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the "theatrical version."


Jamie Foxx leads a brilliant cast in this powerful voyage through the life of the blind, emotionally troubled, African American genius of pop jazz, Mr. Ray Charles. Though the entire cast performs wonderfully, Mr. Foxx earned more than simply an Oscar. If it were possible to nominate an actor in consecutive years, I would consider doing so for Mr. Foxx. Foxx doesn't just play Charles, he re-creates him. CJ Sanders and Sharon Warren also deserve special mention for their portrayal of Ray's mother (the inspiration of his life) and young Ray. These two provided the strongest support in the film.

The dramas of Charles' struggles with guilt, the death of his younger brother and mother, blindness, discrimination, addiction, and success, are neatly woven into the tapestries of his music. The music is beautiful, the script is, as far as I can tell, perfect, and the acting is nothing short of legendary.

The directorial method of the film warrants discussion. Taylor Hackford - a director I am generally ambivalent about - had to choose what aspects of the larger-than-life and complex life story of Mr. Charles would tell his story most honestly, dramatically, and understandably. Though some disagree (seemingly wanting a documentary instead of a dramatized biopic) I believe he selected his themes admirably. A big part of the success of this film is its consistent focus on a few persistent themes in Charles' life - his profound love and respect for his mother, his need to be loved and accepted, his addiction and guilt complex, his musical genius, and his deep-seated fear of responsibility for others. Charles is depicted as a man struggling valiantly against an army of personal demons. I learned more than I could have imagined about one of the men I used to listen to on my old turntable with my dad in his livingroom on Sunday nights while football games were on the TV. And nothing was sugar-coated in "Ray." The themes are carried forward with power and human dignity. These themes create a unifying drama which span the length of his long and illuminated life. The power of these themes, the strong script and directing, the music, and the acting make this one of the most enjoyable and evocative biographical films I have seen.

Recommended for everyone.


'Ray' lives on

Ray Dir- Taylor Hackford Cast- Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Curtis Armstrong and Sharon Warren. Written by- Taylor Hackford and James L. White. Rating- ***

"Hit the road Jack, and don't come backno more, no more, no more, NO MORE!" Who would've thought that this immortal line that has almost become a remedial mantra for broken relationships in popular culture was conceived over a lovers' brawl! Ray Charles was a genius. And if there was one thing that he knew, breathed and lived for; it was music. So in a lifetime that comprised acute poverty, a desperate struggle with darkness, guilt, drugs and painful affairs; Ray still found moments when inspiration hit him out of nowhere and words and notes took their own shape to form an instant eternal classic!

There are some lives that deserve to be transformed on the silver screen. Ray Charles's life was one of them. It almost comes as a shock to learn that this project had no studio-backing until it was completed! And that backing probably came after the initial screenings where Jamie Foxx's performance was lauded and predicted as a surefire Oscar winner in hushed voices. Jamie Foxx as Ray almost convinces us that it is indeed Ray Charles performing on screen and not an actor impersonating! From the crooked all-knowing smile to the bent gait of not so much a handicapped but a man dancing through his demons, Foxx captures every essence of the actual Ray Charles. Ray was a complicated man. He never demanded sympathy and very rarely showed it himself. An astute businessman, he ensured his success at any cost, sometimes at the price of losing his loved ones. He never apologized for his philandering ways and always maintained that he loved his family, which we are convinced he did. He liked sex; it was as simple as that! But beneath all, there also existed a Ray that was afraid of darkness. Imagine the horrors of a blind man afraid of darkness! His fear was because of his guilt. Ray was convinced that he was the reason for his brother's death, and his whole life was spent trying to redeem himself. Ray was a maverick who fused gospel with jazz, an unheard blasphemous practice in the 50's. But his intentions weren't to instigate. He was simply practicing the only way he knew of getting close to God!

It is hard to capture such an eventful life as that of Ray, and that is perhaps where the movie fails. We are never really allowed to get close to Ray as a person. We know him only as much as we see him. His relationships, especially with Margie Hendricks(Regina King), aren't explored in detail. And the script barely passes over Della Bea(Kerry Washington), Ray's wife, who everyone knows was a rock by his side. And the biggest blunder of all is the rushed, almost abrupt climax. It's as if the director suddenly realized he was out of stock and called for a pack-up! Nonetheless, 'Ray' is definitely recommended for a flawless performance from Jamie Foxx and an able stellar ensemble. The songs and age create a sense of nostalgia, and we get a genuine feeling that the film is made with sincerity.

- Abhishek Bandekar

Note- 'Ray' is nominated in six categories at this year's Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor(Jamie Foxx).

Rating- ***

* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent

19th February, 2005


A couple of days ago I saw the awesome "House of Sand and Fog" and I was impressed with the amazing performance of Ben Kingsley in the lead role. I decided to see "Ray", trying to understand how and why Ben Kingsley did not win the Oscar of Best Lead Actor. After watching Jamie Foxx in the role of Ray Charles, I agree with the Academy: he really deserved to be awarded. I like Ray Charles, I was not his fan, but it is amazing the resemblance of Jamie Foxx with him. The film is completely supported by Jamie Foxx, who participates of most of the shootings, and his movements on stage looks like as if he was a reincarnation of Ray Charles. With regard to the story, I saw the extended version on DVD, too long but also very pleasant, with many beautiful songs and scenes showing mainly a junkie Ray Charles. My greatest surprise was to find that Ray Charles was heroine addicted, and how he treated his own family. The presentation of his childhood through fragmented flashbacks was the boring part of the movie. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Ray"


Jamie Foxx was the epitome of Ray Charles. After a few moments you stop seeing a film and see a biography played by the great man himself. Ray Charles was truly a genius of music and the movie excellently depicted that. No one has ever or will ever write, play, or record music like this musical giant. When he passed the flesh, the world lost one of it's greatest American heroes. As far as the movie, the fact that Jamie Foxx received a classical music scholarship to college and could play like Ray was an asset to the director. What could be better than that? You don't have to have a "double" play piano and then try to split the screen from someone else's hands to Jamie's face. It worked beautifully. I loved the fact that it also picked up how difficult Ray was. He wasn't always a nice man. You didn't also root for him. He was a drug addict, a womanizer, and sometimes just plain hard-headed. But I guess that's what made him genius so I can't fault him for that. I pick Jamie for Best Actor!


I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.

But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a "great" film. I've seen "Malcolm X" and was blown away. Same with "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Bird". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.

I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several "other" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got "choppy" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on "Lifetime" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.

So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.

Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he "looked" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.

Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say "he was robbed". I wont particularly feel that he had been.

This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A "great" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so.


Let's not beat about the bush here, Taylor Hackford's undoubtedly slick movie has little to make it stand out from the biopic genre other than Jamie Foxx's exceptional, career-making performance. Remember the year they handed the special effects Oscar to the Terminator 2 boffins, uncontested? They should do the same with this year's Best Actor gong.

That Ray Charles' story is worthy of filming is not in dispute. Indeed, the many flashbacks to his traumatic childhood are well-handled and judiciously used. But for a life so unique, the film seems incredibly formulaic and familiar. It follows the 'history of a flawed genius' template almost to the letter: hardship and exploitation, women and drugs, recording wrangles, band squabbles, rehab, yeah yeah yeah. And surely there was more humour in his life than we're treated to here?

I appreciate Charles' music yet where neatly-cut medleys would have kept the story rolling, Hackford indulges himself with near-full-length renditions of too many songs - in gin joints, in the recording studio, in concert halls, infinitum. Narratively, and for non-devotees, they begin to act like a cinematic brake. This may seem like harsh judgement on a music biopic but with a catalogue as extensive as Ray's, we need a taste not the whole dish. Otherwise, we'd buy the albums.

Intrigued as I was, I glanced at my watch more than once. So for all Foxx's brilliance, maybe Ray would have been better served as an HBO two-parter?


Ray is interesting in parts, and technically it's very well made, but Ray is often sluggish, and forgets some important details about Ray's life. All the movie shows us is parts where he's in his prime, and most successful, which is good, it's just I wanted to see some bits about his older life too. Jamie Fox mimics Ray Charles to a t, at times it's absolutely uncanny. I have to say, Jamie is the reason I got through this movie. The 1st half is a lot better then the 2nd. It's more interesting, it has more Oomph, and it's nowhere near as sluggish as the 2nd. I wasn't a big fan of Ray Charles to begin with to be honest, so I really didn't have any expectations for the film, what so ever. Ray's biggest problem had to be the over length. This could've been cut very easily, with more relevant scenes, other then the ones they used. I found the early part of Ray's life when he was just starting to get successful, the most interesting. He was humble back then, and somewhat a gentleman. And while the film may have over exaggerated his actions, he got a bit too full of himself for me to care.

Performance. Jamie Fox gives a performance for the ages as Ray. He looks like Ray, talks like Ray, acts like Ray. He even sings like Ray!. This is much more then an impression, I truly believed he WAS, Ray Charles. He was the heart of the film, and without his presence, this film would've been a complete and utter bore.

Bottom Line. Ray is interesting at times, dreadfully dull at others. When all was said and done, I was disappointed by how routine it seemed at times. Just because it's a bibliographical film, Doesen't mean it's automatically Oscar worthy. Jamie Fox deserved his Oscar, but the movie is above average at best. Worth a watch, but if I were you, I'd keep my expectations at a rather comfortable level.

7/10


Jamie Foxx did an incredible job playing Ray Charles. I loved this movie because every so often there would be a flashback scene and then to the current movie. When Ray Charles was little, he went blind and his mother didn't baby him. She was a strong woman who didn't treat him any different because he was blind. She made him do things on his own and that really pushed him to become a great musician later on in life. His mother also sent him to school as well. Then when Ray Charles became a man, he could stand up for himself and take care of himself but there was a downfall into narcotics, sex and betrayal. When I am discouraged about something I can just think of this movie and it will inspire me.


Like almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard "Georgia ON My Mind" and "The Mess-Around" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple." The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 9/10


Jamie Foxx absolutely IS Ray Charles. His performance is simply genius. He owns the film, just as Spacek owned "Coal Miner's Daughter" and Quaid owned "Great Balls of Fire." In fact, it's hard to remember that the part of Ray Charles is being acted, and not played by the man himself. Ray Charles is legendary. He is well-established as a musician and the music is deep, complex, and innovative ~ even more innovative than I realized before watching this movie. The film should make new fans of a young audience who might come into it knowing little about his music. Ray Charles' life provided excellent biographical material for the film, which goes well beyond being just another movie about a musician. I confess that I knew very little about the man's life until I saw this film. I came out of it being impressed with Ray Charles' courage, strength, and innovation as man and musician.


I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.


A lecture over the life of the tormented magician named Ray Charles. His pulses on the piano made fire music and his nostalgic voice created exciting, cool tunes. Each barrier that Ray was facing never kept him down, and he found his way all over conflicts. A real lesson. A great team of producers help recreate the era and armed with great costumes, hairs and settings one will follow Ray's story believing its true, direct filming! An icy music freezes and goosebumps the audience with clever sound editing. But, the most important part of the movie is Jamie Foxx. His acting is really superb, the most diamond polished acting ever seen. He lives his role. He is the Ray of Light.


Ray Charles Robinson (Jamie Foxx) is a extremely talented pianist and singer as well. Ray is an smart man as well. Ray started his career in the late 1940's before he finds his distinctive style. Ray is certainly popular at the night clubs with his music. Things changes, when he meets an ambitious music producer (Curtis Armstrong). Who knows Ray got what it takes to be an strong performer and he also meets an woman (Kerry Washington), he loves as well & marries along the way. Ray's album becomes an hit, when he mixes soul music and gospel together. Which makes Ray an Controversial man during in the 1950's to the 1960's. Ray has love for all kind of music, including Country. But Ray isn't always the perfect man as he seems to be. Since he had plenty of failed relationship with other woman, while he's married. But he also had to battle with racism, people who double-crossed him, his music ideals and of course, his drug addiction. Which it made Ray's life extremely difficult for him and as well for battling the tragedy of his childhood. Which Ray always blamed himself for.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:Taylor Hackford (Against All Odds, Devil's Advocate, Dolores Claiborne) made an fascinating true-life story of the always interesting of the late "Ray Charles". Foxx won an Oscar for his touching performance of the late entertainer. Foxx brings heart and soul in the film and humour as well. But this film has plenty of rich performances by an top cast including:Regina King, Clifton Powell, Bokeem Woodbine, Aunjaune Ellis, Warwick Davis, Terrence Howard and Sharon Warren as Ray's mother. This is probably THE best film of Hackford's career to date. The film has plenty of song of Charles's best music as well.

DVD has an sharp Pan & Scan (1.33:1) transfer and an excellent Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. Disc 1 has an informative commentary by the director and the DVD also has the original theatrical cut and extended version as well. But u are better watching the theatrical version instead, because the bonus footage is in bad shape at times and u have to click on a logo if you want to see these Deleted Scenes. Disc 2 has deleted scenes with optional commentary by the director (Which is seen in the Extended Version), featurettes and more. But the featurettes are disappointingly short for this DVD. Since the movie is extraordinary good. This film was nominated four Oscars including Best Costume Designs, Best Director, Best Editing and Best Picture. This is an amazing true-life story well told but of course, Charles' life was even more controversial and outrageous than the final film. Still, it's pretty damn close. Screenplay by James L. White. From an Story by White and director:Hackford. Oscar-Winner for Best Sound. Don't miss it. (**** ½/*****).


Brilliant Biographic FILM..

Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.

Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!

Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.

I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?

The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington  she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.

Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried I Cried very Badly

I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry And that's a lot for me!

All in all a SUPERB FILM. One of the very best of this century!

10/10


This is the true story of the great pianist and jazz singer/legend Ray Charles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Jamie Foxx). He was born in a poor African American-town, and he went blind at 7 years old, but with his skills of touch and hearing, this is what would later in life would lead him to stardom. By the 1960's he had accomplished his dream, and selling records in millions, and leading the charts with songs and albums. But the story also showed his downfalls, including the separation from his wife and child, because of his affair with a band member , his drug and alcohol use, and going to prison because of this. Also starring Regina King as Margie Hendricks, Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson, Clifton Powell as Jeff Brown, Harry J. Lennix as Joe Adams, Bokeem Woodbine as Fathead Newman, Aunjanue Ellis as Mary Ann Fisher, Sharon Warren as Aretha Robinson, C.J. Sanders as Young Ray Robinson, Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun and Richard Schiff as Jerry Wexler. It is a great story with a great singer impression, the songs, including Hit the Road Jack, are the highlights. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, and it was nominated for Best Costume Design, Best Director for Taylor Hackford, Best Editing and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and it was nominated for the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Craig Armstrong and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It was number 99 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good!


Recent years have seen a number of biopics of famous singers, and "Ray", the story of Ray Charles, has much in common with "Walk the Line" which was made the following year and told the story of Johnny Cash. Cash and Charles were near-exact contemporaries, both being born in the early thirties and dying in 2003/04. Both grew up in poverty in the American Deep South. Both lost a brother in an accident during childhood. Both achieved success in the 1950s. Both experienced problems in their marriages, and both were addicted to drugs. All these matters are emphasised in both films. There are also similarities with Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind". Although that film was about a mathematician rather than a musician, it, like both "Ray" and "Walk the Line", stressed the part played by its subject's wife in helping her husband to overcome his problems.

Ray Charles was born to a single mother in a poor black community in Georgia in 1930. (His original name was Raymond Charles Robinson, but when he was starting his career as a musician he dropped his surname to avoid confusion with the boxer Sugar Ray Robinson). In some ways Charles had an even harder time than did Cash, having to cope with two additional disadvantages in the shape of his blindness and of the racism which affected all black Americans, especially in the South, during his lifetime. Charles had a particularly traumatic childhood, witnessing the death of his younger brother George in a drowning accident and going blind about a year or two later. He appears to have been haunted by nightmares and feelings of guilt over George's death throughout his life.

The first half of the film is rather slow moving and is a standard rags-to-riches showbiz biopic, telling the story of how the young Charles is taught to play the piano, becomes a nightclub performer and then rises to fame as a major artist, falling in love along the way with the beautiful Della Bea. The best scenes in this part of the film are the flashbacks to Charles's childhood. There is an effective recurrent image of coloured glass bottles hanging from a tree in front of his house; perhaps this was one of his few visual memories of his life before he went blind. There is also a memorable scene in which the teenaged Charles shames a prejudiced bus driver into letting him on the bus by pretending to have lost his sight on Omaha beach (In reality he would only have been thirteen at the time of the Normandy landings).

The second half of the film becomes more interesting as it moves into more controversial territory, focusing on Charles's drug addiction, the problems in his marriage caused by his affair with Margie Hendricks, one of his backing singers, and his battles against racism. In the early sixties Charles caused a sensation by refusing to play in front of a racially segregated audience in Georgia (although, contrary to what is stated in the film, this did not result in his being banned from performing in the state). He also fought against racial divides within the music industry itself, performing not only traditionally "black" styles of music such as gospel and rhythm and blues, but also traditionally "white" ones such as country and western (regarded by many black Americans as the music of choice of the redneck community).

As Peter Bradshaw, film critic of "The Guardian", noted "Ray" is a sunny film which diplomatically turns away from the darker side of things. It omits any mention of such matters as the death of Charles's beloved mother Aretha during his teenage years, his brief marriage to Eileen Williams in the early fifties and his eventual divorce from Della Bea in 1977. It also plays down the extent of his womanising and the number of his illegitimate children. There are similarities here with "A Beautiful Mind" which also omitted a number of controversial details about its subject's personal life, including a divorce.

Fans of Ray Charles will no doubt enjoy the film for the music, but it is worth watching even for those who do not know much about him, chiefly on account of Jamie Foxx's Oscar-winning performance in the title role, reproducing Charles's mannerisms so exactly that we think we actually are watching a blind man, even though Foxx himself is sighted. (Unlike Joaquin Phoenix in "Walk the Line", however, Foxx did not do his own singing- doubtless Charles's distinctive singing voice was too difficult to reproduce). He receives good support from some of the other performers, particularly Sharon Warren as Aretha and Kerry Washington as Della Bea. The film is uneven and overlong, but nevertheless rewarding. 7/10


I agree that this film was spectacular. The way in which Jamie Foxx captured, not only the impression of Ray Charles, but the essence of Ray Charles really made the film. His life made a great story and it is good that it is finally being told. I also found a great interview with Jamie Foxx about this role by Ernie Manouse from InnerVIEWS on KUHT, Houston Channel 8. The link is http: //video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-3001837218936089620&q =innerviews+ jamie+foxx&hl=en . I encourage everyone to check it out, as it gives in depth looks into what went into his role and his personal feelings about Ray Charles. The only problem I might cite with the film is that the shotting style was rather bland at times, but in the end I think it helped make the story more realistic and keep the focus on the person, Ray Charles, rather than the film Ray.


A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of "Ray," a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.

The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.

Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts "Georgia on My Mind" as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.

What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.

Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives "Ray" a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.

As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.

One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.

This is an excellent biography, which, like "Walk the Line" is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, "Ray" is something to experience.


Ray is one of those movies that makes you pause. You actually think about what you heard or think about what you read about this man and it doesn't even come close. During my first viewing of Ray I forgot I was watching a movie I felt like a peeping tom watching this man's life thru a window. This movie is so compelling it drags you in and it involves your every emotion you go thru a emotional roller-coaster ride and when it's over you don't want to do it again so soon because it has that kind of emotional punch that other movies are lacking. Jamie Foxx deserved his Oscar and quite rightfully so his performance is spectacular and it should be held up as the standard for anybody wanting to do a bio pic anytime soon. This movie is as good as it's subject both deserved the titles classic and legend.


I'm not saying anything new when I say that "Ray" was magnificent. As I proceed to laud this movie I have to mention something that sets it apart from other films. Very rarely is a film made entirely by the actor(s). "Ray" quite simply was made by Jamie Foxx. Without the wonderful performance of Jamie Foxx, "Ray" would just be another interesting and informative biopic. I always thought Foxx was funny, stemming from his days with "In Livin' Color" and "The Jamie Foxx Show", and I also knew that he was talented, as he used his own show ("The Jamie Foxx Show") to show off his musical talents. But never did I imagine that he could pull off a role like this. I don't know much about acting and what they go through to get into character or other things like that, but what I saw from Jamie Foxx was extremely impressive. He wrapped himself into that role and made us see Ray Charles rather than an actor portraying Ray Charles. The story of "Ray" was great yes, but it was given life by Jamie Foxx.


The very first talking picture has returned from oblivion, and now you can hear it and see it! In autumn of 1894, at the Edison lab complex in West Orange, New Jersey, Thomas Edison's associate William Dickson tried to combine two existing technologies (the phonograph and the kinetoscope) to record sound and image together. In the event, Dickson was unable to synchronise the playback of sound and image, so this experimental film was never released to paying audiences ... and consequently (unlike many silent films which Dickson made for Edison at this time) it has no official title. The silent image (recorded at 40 fps) has been in the Library of Congress for years, known to film historians as a mute curiosity. It was also known that the 'soundtrack' had been recorded on one of the crude wax cylinders languishing at the Edison National Historic Site ... although nobody knew which one.

But now that's changed. Recently, curators located the wax cylinder, which had broken into several pieces. These were reassembled: a playback was obtained, and the sound was digitised. Hollywood's veteran soundtrack editor Walter Murch cleaned up the background noise and tweaked the digitisation to make it synch with the film image, which Murch had digitally compressed to 30 fps. Sound and image are synchronised at last!

The film begins with an offscreen man's voice calling: 'The rest of you fellows ready? Go ahead!' (The unseen speaker remains unidentified, but was probably Dickson's assistant Fred Ott.) On screen, Dickson plays a violin into an immense funnel mounted on a tripod (one of Edison's sound-recording devices) while alongside him, in full view of the camera, two male lab assistants embrace each other for some quick ballroom dancing to the tempo of Dickson's music.

The film lasts barely 17 seconds: just long enough for us to marvel at this crude technology before being provoked to laughter at the sight of two men waltzing in each other's arms. Speaking of which, here's a WARNING: a well-known but extremely inaccurate reference book ('The Celluloid Closet', by the late Vito Russo) includes a frame enlargement from this movie and identifies it as 'The Gay Brothers'. That's incorrect. 'The Gay Brothers' is an entirely different movie, made by Dickson at the Edison lab during this same period. 'The Gay Brothers' never had a soundtrack: it's a brief fiction film about two brothers who are NOT 'gay' in the sense Russo meant it. The deceased Mr Russo, for his own reasons, wanted us to perceive Dickson's experimental sound film (arguably the first movie musical!) as an artefact of 19th-century homoeroticism. (Hmm, what is it about gay men and musicals?) Sorry, but there's just no such content here.

This vitally important film deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. I've often maintained that no 'lost' movie should ever be considered irretrievable unless it was deliberately destroyed: I'm delighted to report that this film is finally available to audiences as its producer intended it, more than a century after it was filmed!


It was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the "peepshow" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.

In this experiment, codenamed simply as "Dickson Experimental Sound Film", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named "Song of the Cabin Boy". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's "Black Maria" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, "The Celluloid Closet", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the "Song of the Cabin Boy" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, "The Gay Brothers", is actually anachronistic as "gay" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).

Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumière's Cinématographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8/10


This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.

The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.

The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.

So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.

8/10


This film is an eery, but interesting film. I will tell you why it is eery later in this review.

The film is interesting because it was the first film to ever contain sound. No, it may not be a one hour and forty two minute film, no it may not contain great action scenes, but it is still a wonderful film to me. It sparked a whole knew revolution if you will, of sound movies. This can be a little eery to watch, knowing that everyone in that film are now dead, I can hear the voice of a man in the beginning who no longer walks the Earth visible, and that the sound is cracky and broken.

I recommend this video for everyone to watch. This created movies as we know it today!


There have been several books that have cited this as the earliest gay cinema. I don't really see this as all that gay in the homosexual sense but then seeing two men dancing in what has to be the worlds first movie musical does have its attraction.

There have been several earlier comments about this film dismissing any homosexual overtones. As to those that are quick to dismiss this film as just being silly and an experiment done late at night after too many drinks... Well I've heard that story before.

This film is of interest as an oddity and if folks want to consider it the first gay film so be it. Better this than the depressing 1919 Anders als die Andern.


The fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a DVD.


I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.

I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.

Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few "trick" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.

One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often.


Ever wonder where that episode, "Tuttle," came from in the middle of the first season of M*A*S*H? Well now the cat's out of the bag: they got it from this Soviet film, a satire on how dumb the Tsar is, due to the slip of a pen (rendering the phrase "the Lieutenants, though ..." into "Lieutenant Kizhe" which has no meaning) and nobody being honest or gutsy enough to contradict him and just tell him the truth -- Kizhe doesn't exist and never did. So they make up an imaginary life for him and eventually kill him off. And 40 years later, David Ketchum and Bruce Shelly borrowed this zany plot and gave us essentially the same story, only on the other side of what had become the Cold War, proving that people in high positions can be equally dumb no matter what their loyalties may be!


Saw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of "lifetime movie network"? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.

The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.

I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed it.


Christine Lahti (Sandy Dunlap) and Mary Tyler Moore (Holly Davis) worked well with soapish material, Ted Danson did his best with a thankless role of Chip Davis The premise of this that the two ladies' friendship, one a seemingly happily married woman and the other a career woman who is aware of her biological clock ticking. I found the relationship that Ted Danson's character had with the single woman played by Christine Lahti's rather sordid. He behaved in a caddish way, yet he left two "widows" pining over him, bawling. I found it revolting when when Sandy told him she wanted to break it off after meeting his wife, he calls her saying he misses her (did he call his wife? There was no sign of that). He behaved like a heel. It perhaps would have made a more interesting film had he not been killed off. Perhaps both ladies would have wised up and dumped him. I liked the friendship between the two ladies but it was spoiled by what they had in common: The Cad of a husband.


Although the premise of the movie involves a major "coincidence," the actors all do a creditable job and look great bringing the story to life. I found myself rooting for the characters played by Mary Tyler Moore and Christine Lahti, empathizing with both, and wanting them to reconcile. Sam Waterston and Ted Danson are fine in their roles as well, doing a decent job with the stereotypical buddy relationship. While the story tends to leap through time, occasionally leaving the audience perhaps a little hungry for missing detail, it still flows and avoids any real confusion. This interesting storyline has all the elements for a good "chick flick."


I normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.

This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.

Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.

But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.

I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.

I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go.


Intelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1/2 from ****


The first thing you see in this film is a static angle(one which will be repeated later in the film), depicting the chaos going on(unseen to the audience) in a studio that airs news. Soon after, Fonda's character's typical story is shown, in that same angle. Don't let this mislead you; the film is not about a female reporter, a woman struggling to succeed in a male-dominated profession. That is merely a lead-in, a way of starting the film(though it's used later). The actual point to this production is revealed gradually, and the first we see of it is in a deliberately long scene early on. The entire film has that pace; not slow or drawn-out, but deliberate. It's never really fast, even in the few sequences that one would normally expect to be so. This pacing(especially because it seems to slow down further as the plot is revealed, as the disturbing, unsettling nature of the film is unraveled) is strong, almost painful to the viewer. It inspires you to, if it had been possible, jump into the screen, grab the people responsible by the collar and yell at them to *do* something about it, to remedy the situation. Never once did I feel like getting up or even taking my eyes off the screen for a moment. The subject is extremely important to be aware of, and it's handled perfectly here. No over-dramatization(well... very little, anyway), just an accurate presentation of the issue. The direction is astounding. The empathy felt for Lemmon's character is profound. The editing is masterful... one scene near the very end illustrates that perfectly. The editor, judging from his filmography, is vastly underrated. The writing was excellent. The acting was great, in particular by Lemmon, Fonda and Douglas(who also produced it). The lack of a score is perfect; no music is needed to enhance. The ending is sublime and effective. The movie does have a few negative points... among them, some of the dialog is obviously and undeniably mainly exposition, one particular part of the film, whilst dramatic, doesn't seem to mesh with something that follows it. Not everyone will watch the film because of two features of it which are commonly (and rightfully so) attributed to bad movies; the pacing(which can be mistaken as being slow) and the (lack of) score. One could argue that to be a negative thing, as everyone ought to consider the points it presents, but maybe it's better this way; handling the heavy subject with the intelligence and respect(for the topic as well as the viewer)... something like this, maybe it shouldn't be spoon-fed. I was mesmerized with the film, and left very taken aback. I recommend this to anyone who believe themselves strong enough to handle it. 9/10


When THE CHINA SYNDROME was released, plenty of right-wing critics and pro-nuke supporters blasted this film, particularly since its three leading stars were all known for their liberal politics and their overt distrust of nuclear power. But it only took two weeks and a near-catastrophic accident at Three Mile Island to shut those critics up.

Fonda and Douglas are the L.A. news crew that witness a potentially nasty accident at the Ventana nuclear power plant. Douglas films the event through the plant's soundproof glass; but the TV station will not air the footage, fearing a massive lawsuit. It is thus up to Fonda and Douglas to get at the truth, despite a massive attempt by the plant's owners to cover up the accident.

But a conscientious shift supervisor (Jack Lemmon) has uncovered certain defects in the plant's pump support structure. He believes that these defects were the cause of the accident and that, though it would be extremely costly and lengthy, if repairs aren't made, the next accident could be apocalyptic. But he can't get anyone who works with him to believe his story. The result is a nightmarish climax that pulls various political, technological, and human interest stories together in one disturbing package.

While obviously quite politically liberal in nature, THE CHINA SYNDROME, well directed and co-written by James Bridges (THE PAPER CHASE), is also fundamentally a message movie about the inherent dangers of putting technology and nuclear power together. Fundamentally, nuclear power can NEVER be made safe because people can NEVER be perfect. That is what the film is saying; and in a highly entertaining and suspenseful way, it says it brilliantly.


All the right elements seemed to conspire here to make this a memorable thriller for years to come. You have the stellar cast - Michael Douglas in an uncharacteristic 'free-spirit' role that pretty much launched his movie career, Fonda playing her typical forthright female doing her bit for womens lib, and Jack Lemmon as assured as ever showing us a man with a crisis of confidence. Give them a hot-button topic about big business being duplicitous, and that's encouraging for a kickoff, but to have life imitating art so soon after is a marketing man's dream.

The script is impressively taut, intelligent but mercifully keeping the jargon to a minimum, and there is a genuine sense of sustained tension brought in play by the director as our three protagonists race to beat the clock. If you like 'whistle blowing' dramas, then this is not quite as good as "The Insider", but the whole thing is more than nervy enough.


Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8/10


TV newscaster Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda) and her radical camerman Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) are at a nuclear power plant when a serious accident happens. The plants managers play it down but Adams has filmed it all. Wells and Adams try to get it on the air but the corporation that runs the plant prevents it. Plant executive Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) realizes there are serious problems and tests have been falsified. He tries to get executives to believe him--only they know it. Wells, Adams and Godell find all their lives are in danger.

I saw this in a movie theatre in 1979. I was only 17 and it scared me silly. To make matters worse the Three Mile Island accident happened around this time making the movie all that more real. Seeing it over 20 years later it doesn't scare me but it still is an excellent film--it works as a mystery, a gripping drama and an expose on the nuclear power industry. Fonda (with red hair) has one of her best roles as Wells--she perfectly conveys her character's growing suspicion and horror when she realizes a nuclear disaster could happen. Lemmon is (as always) excellent. He starts out believing in his company and the job and slowly starts to unravel when he starts finding things out. He was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award for this. Douglas is good but he has a small part and is completely overshadowed by Lemmon and Fonda.

A really great film--one of the best of the 70s. Don't miss this one!


I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.

However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.

I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does.


One of the best and most exciting of all conspiracy thrillers, (there were a number of such film in the 1970's). This one is about an accident at a Neuclear Reactor and of the attempts to cover it up. Jack Lemmon is the employee who realizes just how dangerous the plant is and Jane Fonda is the crusading television reporter who takes the story on board and both players are at their best.

The events portrayed in the film are, of course, terrifying and not in the least bit far-fetched, (much of what happens here happened in real life at Three Mile Island), and although it now looks like something a period piece it, nevertheless, highlights just how fragile and dangerous a world we have created for ourselves. Expect a number of similar films about the effects of global warming any time soon, (and not rubbish like "The Day After Tomorrow" either).


"The China Syndrome" launched a whole string of films about the potentially devastating effects of misused nuclear power, a black cloud of paranoia that would hang over America for much of the Reagan years. It's a well-made and effective drama, given an extra punch by its high-power stars, notably Jack Lemmon who plays a senior official of the nuclear power plant who suffers a crisis of conscience. But one can't help but think that it was the serendipitous timing of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident that occurred just a couple of weeks after this film's release that has given it its lasting appeal as a classic from the 70s. As watchable as it is, it's certainly no classic.

With a red-headed Jane Fonda as a news reporter and a bearded Michael Douglas as her camera man (and the film's producer, by the way).

Grade: B+


Great film from the late 1970's. Says much about corporate corruption at the expense of the common person, so that the powerful can gain gain huge profits and disregard the environment and safety of others.

Nearly 30 years later this film is compelling about the power of certain corporate entities that since the films release have gained ten fold in their ability to control; It shows the need for regulation of the public against powerful business interests whose primary goal is profit.

Jack Lemmon is brilliant- while Jane Fonda and Micheal Douglas are as equally compelling in their roles. The frivolous 70s where damned for much, this film redeems the decade.

A film that becomes better after each watching.


Again, I've read all of the comments posted here and agree with the many intelligent ones, but totally disagree with those who think it was/is hokum.

Personally, I think nuclear is about the only energy left to us, unless our governments (feds and states) increase the grants thinking homeowners will use photo-cells on their roofs. Many attractive and pricey homes in Southern Calfifornia are designed and built to take advantage of the cleanest energy around, the sun. I live in a loft, which is exposed to total sunlight on its roof the entire day. I hardly use the AC - I'm sure it would consume too much electricity to convert the intense heat in the attic to about five degrees cooler. We are blessed with "dry" heat in this part of the country. I'm from the Gulf Coast of the USA, so I know about humidity.......

That said, I found "the China Syndrome" to be a convincing movie about what COULD go wrong, if the industry is not busy regulating and inspecting nuclear plants. I think there are enough comments posted here to enlighten those who still fear it like the plague: they ARE safe. TMI is still on-line....

Director James Bridges carefully guides this plot (by Mike Gray-T S Cook) to build suspense and to a thoughtfully interesting film. All the roles were well-played: Jane Fonda ("Kimberly Wells"), Jack Lemmon (Jack Godell") and producer Michael Douglas ("Richard Adams") are all excellent in their roles, plus all of the rest of the cast. I, too, loved there being no score. It was so interesting to get a true-to-life glimpse of the behind-the-scenes of the TV industry - that shouldn't be surprising. Currently, Dan Rather is sue-ing CBS, and I hope he wins. Can you believe Donald Trump saying "he's a loser" ? Trump - who cares? "tiberius1234" posted a very good comment here - I agree. It is my opinion that getting "vaporized" by a nuclear spill is much better than living in a world which has been wasted, and becomes "Blade Runner" and/or "Solyent Green". Come away from your video-games for a couple of hours and watch this "dated" movie (really isn't), and get a little education on nuclear energy. I Recommend it to the whole family....


first watched this film years ago with my daughter who is now 13 and fell in love with the vampire. we both thought it was a top film, then watched sub 11 then sub 111 now i find there is sub 1v which i cannot wait to get my fangs on, and also there is a fifth in the pipe line. if no one has seen the movies. these are the best of the best. i think it deserver's a thousands Oscar's. i could watch these from morning to night.i would love to have a set of nails like he has, watch out girls. i love it as all the story lines continues from film to film. these ant typical vampire movies they are better. i would love to live in the life that is protruded in the films. it would make all my dreams come true


the subspecies series is an always will be the best vampire movies ever. there is something about them that makes them special i think it`s the feeling you get when you watch them .<br /><br />they are set in modern times and yet they feel as if they are set in the 1700`s or 1800`s i think it has some thing to do with the set`s that are used if so then it`s working keep it up guy`s :).

in a quick round up of what`s happened in the first part - Radu was supposedly bannished from his home land years ago by his father and he has decided to come back and take what he thinks is his birth rite. the blood stone and all his father has so he kill`s his father who is played by Angus Scrimm (the tall man from the Phantasm movies). and takes the blood stone which has emense power to who ever has it because who has it need never kil anyone again because the stone is supposedly meant to drip the bloody of the saints and every time the Radu takes a drop from it he is slowly going insane. (thats all we need an insane vampire as if a normal vampire aint bad enough). well Radu`s brother Stephan try`s to put a stop to his evil ways all while trying to stop himself falling inlve with a tourist who is staying at a house/fort which belongs to a friend of his.

well one thing leads to another and the two brothers clash and well you will have to see the movie to see what goes on from here on in.

i will review/comment on the other sequels soon .

the difference between this and buffy is buffy is too commercial and this is not so this will not appeal to everyone but this has an atmosphere far superior to that of buffy although Radu does not look as good as the wonder full Sarah Michelle Gellar :).

rating for this movie 10/10 a fine example of how a vampire movie should be done :).


King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm) of Romania is a vampire, but a vampire of light who wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with mankind. But his son, Radu (Anders Hove), is a cruel creature to his very heart (which is pretty obvious as soon as you see him). Three female students have come to study local folklore, but find themselves drawn into the vampires legends at just the wrong time: Vladislav has been killed.

Who can say anything bad about a film featuring a cameo from Angus Scrimm? I can't. I mean, I had some low expectations after seeing other Full Moon pictures ("Puppet Master" in particular, and "Demonic Toys"). But despite the really bad animated effects of the demons, this film was actually really well done and very fun to watch. Plenty of blood, a good plot and backstory (the Bloodstone story was surprisingly refreshing) and even some new angles on the vampire mythos, which you'd think would be dead by now. (Maybe I'm wrong, but this is probably the first film to feature rosary beads being fired from a gun.) Aside from vampires and blood, you get a share of nudity (gratuitous, but welcome) and I had to notice the excellent score from the composers (not sure who deserves credit, but those involved include Stuart Brotman, Richard Kosinski, William Levine, Michael Portis and John Zeretzka). This is Horror 101 all the way. Heck, you even get two sequels, which is the sign of a true horror film. (Of course, some bad films get sequels, too -- did I mention "Puppet Master"?) The Romanian theme was well-done, and the film even seems to have been made by Romanians if I am guessing their name origins correctly. And the score -- the music -- really stood out for me as a nice change of pace, very mood-setting. I like Richard Band, but I'm glad another composer was given a shot because he nailed the atmosphere on the head. If you like vampire films and want a slight variation (one of the Eastern European variety), this is worth seeing.


For pure gothic vampire cheese nothing can compare to the Subspecies films. I highly recommend each and every one of them.


OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to.


A few years ago, while I was renting some movies, I came across Subspecies 4, ended up watching it and actually kind of liking it, we need a good vampire gore flick that doesn't hold back. But when I went back to the video store, they said they didn't have any other Subspecies videos, unfortunately, the same went for any other video store I checked out. I gave up, until someone on youtube actually posted all the Subspecies films and I got to watch them all last night and I'm hooked. I am now a fan of the Full Moon Subspecies series. I think because this was the type of horror film I have been looking for, I've been looking for a good cheesy scare for a long time and Subspecies filled that spot. Radu is one of the coolest vampires on screen and almost gives Nosferatu a run for his fangs!

Radu is an evil vampire who is after his blood stone, his birth rite, the stone contains some blood that is absolutely incredible and gives him strength. Three American girls who are studying Romanian history and culture bump into a man, Stephan, who offers to help. They stay at Radu's castle where we find out that Stephan is Radu's brother; Radu seduces and turns two of the girls, but Stephan falls for one of the girls, Michelle, and will do anything to protect her.

Subspecies is a fun series, despite the cheesy effects, it makes it in some ways more likable. Plus Radu was a perfect villain as Stephan was the perfect angel like romantic vampire. The story is chilling and I think this was a fun vampire movie. This was also the first in the series, the best part is, the sequels are just as fun. I would recommend this for a scary movie night, watch it in the dark, Radu is sure to send shivers down your spine, or even your neck... OK, cheesy joke, couldn't resist.

7/10


Absolute grabber of a movie, and given its age, years ahead of its time. I first saw this the week my dad came home with a neighbor's TV, that the guy had thrown on the scrap heap. A tinkerer with all things electrical, dad had it working inside two days. This was July 1955...and then probably only the third house in the street to HAVE television! Pretty much the first thing we ever saw on that grainy and flickering old 12-inch screen was THIS film. "It's pretty OLD dear," I recall my mom telling me!

Almost 50 years on, and it doesn't seem any older - rather like World War I in that respect! Terrific little fantasy about a London omnibus carrying thirteen passengers, that crashes, killing one of their number. Then, in flashback we pick up on the lives of these people and what brought them to being on this bus that very day.

Returning to the crash at the end of the film, the victim's identity is revealed, perhaps the inspiration behind the 1960 movie THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER.

If ever you come across this little gem, I suggest you watch it!


So many early British sound films that I've seen on video suffer from either poor print transfer quality or poor sound or both. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a copy of this movie on a video of excellent quality, enabling me to focus on the story itself.

And, an excellent story it was. At first sight, the passengers on the ill-fated bus looked like a pretty boring lot (except for the always lovely Jessie Matthews). But, as the film went back to show each passenger's story on the day before the accident, I discovered that the cast, contrary to initial appearance, was a talented group of performers, skillfully directed so as to bring a real individuality to their distinctive characterizations.

Viewers may have different preferences as to which two passengers are going to meet a tragic end and which ones will survive. But, the movie holds your interest as it keeps you guessing. This film deserves a much wider audience - a real gem of early British Cinema.


This film has an excellent premise and is really crying out to be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster. As I recall (and it's a few years since I've seen the film) the action starts with a London omnibus filled with people. There is an horrific crash and one passenger dies. The rest of the film is then told in flashback, with 13 characters who were on the bus getting their recent lives explored in intricate detail. At the end of the film we return to the crash and find out which of these chirpy, vivid characters has met a gruesome end. Great stuff, a little like a good tabloid news story fleshed out in precise, even handed detail. If only it were available on video...


This movie pops up now and again on the ABC in Australia at about 3 am in the morning.

It starts off with the scene of a bus crash in London.

The films has got flashbacks of each character as the film progresses, plus the lapsed photography of Big Ben winding back, to symbolise what events occurred thirteen hours ago, up until the bus crash.

It took me a while to understand it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.

If Sean Cunningham and Quentin Tarrantino got together and made a film, this may be the result - due to the flashbacks and small stories tying in, and deaths.

I am unsure of the main characters, as it has been a while since I have seen it, but a rare gem indeed.


This is an exceptional film. It is part comedy, part drama, part suspense. The dialog is exquisite. Most of the actors and actresses were very famous in their time, and for good reason. You will probably recognize someone, even if you don't usually watch older movies. They are also each in a role that particularly suits their talents.

One correction to make on another users comment is that two people, not one, are announced to die in the accident. Maybe the unlucky two are a reflection of what the writer considers important in life. The movie is too engaging to worry about who it is until it happens.

The story is ahead of its time, but it does not lose the quality of an older movie. Time and effort was spent perfecting the camera's view and the soundtrack, something modern movie makers tend to forget.


Despite its age, this film retains its undoubted charm and attraction, and is a fine, surviving example of early British cinema. It has an underlying air of eeriness, interspersed with shafts of humour which are not out of place, and serve to demonstrate the assured direction & production values involved. So many episodic type films are disjointed and untidy, but this is not one of them. The standard of acting helps a great deal, and the various disparate characters come across as interesting and believable. All in all, this long-forgotten little gem is well worth anyone's attention, in spite of the one jarring note in the film which, surprisingly, escaped the censor's attention!


Why Jessie Matthews, one of Britains top musical stars, was in this movie in between her sparkling "The Good Companions" and the classic "Evergreen" is a good question? When I first saw it I was really disappointed. I wanted to see her sing and dance - she was billed as "Millie - the non - stop variety girl" but there was more stop than variety.

Now I see it as a good little drama.

It is about a bus crash and the stories, leading up to it, of the people on the bus.

Apart from Jessie Matthews, who is great as Millie - Sir Ralph Richardson plays her fiancée ( yes, that's right).

Edmund Gwenn - who went to Hollywood to co-star in Lassie movies and also with Natalie Wood in "Miracle on 34th Street", plays a grumpy businessman. Gordon Harker is his very annoying partner.

Emlyn Williams - who wrote "Night Must Fall" was the black - mailing villain and Frank Lawton, who went to Hollywood and appeared in "David Copperfield" and "The Devil Doll" is the young man in trouble. Sonnie Hale who was married to Jessie Matthews at the time played the bus conductor.


With looks that could kill, and a willingness to display her charms, Paget's sensuality leaves no doubt as to where her assets lay...

She plays a sultry-innocent 13th-century princess who rouses her people to save Egypt from the ambitions of a powerful Beduin (Michael Rennie) and joins her forces with the son of the Caliph of Baghdad (Jeffrey Hunter) to save her trembling throne... She also finds time to fulfill a great deal of exotic dancing... Her luscious legs make her hard to forget!

The emphasis is not on the plot, but on the visual pleasure of a great number of beautiful girls in sensual Technicolored costumes...