Thorn-BMI is out of business, before they stopped making films they made a chiller of a movie. Using E.S.P. and telekinesis as the basis of the daughter whose father mastered a terrible power. Only in the death of her father did Olivia find that her father dubbed 'Raymar' from Raymarkovitch had really murdered 6 girls and was planning two more by using the technique of Psyhic Vampirism.

Our picture starts with 6 coroner wagons pulling in and music to match the grusome discovery of the 6 girls. Dead all with their eyes wide open in a closet. In the walls were all kinds of objects, the coroners men were pulling up an old man, when blue lightning hit the ceiling which caused a circular hole to form only made the film more bizarre!

If you like extremely chilling scenes this for you. Unless you can see dead bodies from years ago in each level of decay, don't view it without a friendly companion. Like "The Changeling" it has some heart stopping horror in it. I gave this a rating of 7 it's in color, actress Meg Tilly debuted in this film if you can find it see it.


ONE DARK NIGHT is a highly overlooked and little known film from the early 80's that deserves an audience that I fear it will never get, and that's a damn shame. I have seen this film compared to others that have gotten a bigger name over the years, most notably PHANTASM, HELL NIGHT and MAUSOLEUM. This is a much different film than those and I don't see the comparisons other than the mausoleum, which is a bit similar to the one in PHANTASM, but not enough to make any real comparisons. I'm not sure how this one slipped through without a broader acceptance. Maybe it's all in the marketing, I don't know. Perhaps a remake would breathe new life into it, unless Raymar drained all the life out of it that is. I'm not too big on all the remakes that are abundant these days, but I think they do work well with lesser known films (except for the awful GHOST SHIP remake, which other than the opening scene and Mudvayne's Not Falling blaring, was utter crap). So if a remake of ONE DARK NIGHT would happen to fall into the right hands, I think it would make a lot of people go and watch the original. I know that's what I do if there's a remake of a film I haven't seen before. So anything short of a remake, I fear, would not bring this film back to life. Unless, of course, Raymar got his eyes on it.

Anyways, ONE DARK NIGHT is a must see for horror fans, especially 80's horror fans ('cause we all know that's when the best horror movies were made). Creepy setting. Fairly good acting. Very good story. Campy. What more could you want from an early 80's horror film? What's that... nudity and gore? Well, sorry. No nudity or gore in this film, but it's still great nonetheless! A solid 8 out of 10. Enjoy.


A bunch of sorority girls make a new pledge spend the night in a creepy mausoleum. Of course the recently deceased don't stay deceased for long and all hell breaks loose."One Dark Night" is an enjoyable 80's horror with some ghastly dead bodies floating around that are being controlled by the spirit of a dead psychic Raymar.There is no gore and nudity,but the atmosphere of a mausoleum is very eerie.The acting is solid,but the script takes too much time to develop the characters until the final 20 minutes that Raymar finally breaks out of his grave.The cinematography is impressive and the the mausoleum is a great location for the climactic events.The film takes so long to get going and this is its major flaw.7 out of 10.


Since Jason and his ilk took over horror films circa 1980 most every horror film has involved a group of hormonally charged teenagers being chopped to bits with the focus on the chopping and not the suspense.

This little film is different. Made in the early 80's it does what every good horror film should do - bring your worst fears to life while you sit around just knowing that these horrors are just around the corner. Then, you make those horrors simmer, just don't turn it into a lesson on the biology of butchering.

The story features Meg Tilly right before she had a short-lived turn with fame starting with "The Big Chill" and then slipped back into obscurity in the early 90's. Meg plays an outcast teenager who is just dying to get into the good graces of some classic mean girls. They tell her she can be part of their little group if she spends the night in a crypt. The mean girls intend to scare her and cause her to leave the crypt thus giving them a double reward - further tormenting the outcast girl and having an excuse to reject her.

Meanwhile famed occultist Karl Rhamarevich has died a bizarre death shortly after having claimed to have discovered a way to return from the grave and upon his return command great magical powers. His daughter doesn't believe this at first, but she listens to a tape about her father's experiments which included his successful animation of small dead animals and of his plans to emerge from the grave with the power to animate bigger game and draw further power from these animations. She also learns that she may have inherited her father's power and may be the only person who can stop him should he actually rise from the dead. I think you know where this story is headed, so I'll stop here. Did I mention the magician was entombed in the same crypt in which Meg Tilly's character is spending the night?

I will mention that the commercial DVD containing this film does look somewhat degraded compared to what you would expect from a film that was made so recently. I saw it on TV in the mid 1980's and I remember it looking better than this. The problem is that the original negative of the film was never located so the DVD had to be created from a print. This means it comes complete with dirt and scratches.

This is worth checking out for any horror fan. It was an independently made film and an example of the kind of unusual stuff that you could commonly find on late night TV until the infomercial turned that time slot into a vast wasteland circa 1986. Only TCM Underground airs this kind of film anymore.


I saw this film when it was released to theaters. It's definitely one to remember, I had forgotten the title until recently. A friend found it via online search.

One Dark Night is rather unusual for the suspense/horror genre of the time in that it contains no blood. It is of the teen fright variety yet the teens are respectable in their own ways. It's a nice, old-school film with props and scenes that reflect the times. Our hero rides a motorcycle with no brain bucket, for example.

As has been mentioned by previous reviewers, One Dark Night is currently available on DVD. The original negative was not available for the DVD transition. Some reel changes are a bit rough but this doesn't take away from the story. That being said, the colors are vibrant and the lighting is very good.

Adam West plays a rather smallish part in this film as RayMar's son-in-law. His role as an overbearing and indifferent husband is thankfully short.

The story builds over the course of the film. Unlike many horror films of the era, One Dark Night is a great suspense story that gives the viewer time to absorb what is happening.

The final 20 minutes or so of One Dark Night are what make it so memorable. RayMar's telekinetic abilities are used to open old graves in the mausoleum, pull the coffins out, open them and move the corpses around. Attention was afforded to great detail in the final scenes. The rotting, worm-riddled corpses look quite real.


I didn't know anything about this movie before I watched it. It seems to be a lesser-known teen horror from the 80's. What struck me were the ways it differed from so many other movies from that era.

The first thing I noticed was how slowly this movie builds. It doesn't do the typical setup of showing characters being murdered one by one. It takes its time building the back story, leaving a little bit of mystery about what might happen. I was almost starting to think no one would even really get hurt in this movie. But everything leads to the climatic sequence during the last 15 minutes, and then it gets fairly graphic (this was a bad time to take a snack break--I almost couldn't finish my pizza once it started).

The characters also seem slightly more three-dimensional than a lot of the cheap teen scare flicks. There conversations were refreshingly level-headed for the most part, as opposed to the over-the-top stereotypes you'd expect. For example, the girl who is the popular, snobby, queen-bee of the clique isn't constantly spouting insults at everyone, but is capable of having doubts and showing some consideration for others.

So, to summarize, I felt this movie was somewhat original compared to what I expected, and a little better made as well. It drew me in, kept me interested, and then let me have it. As I said, it's pretty gory during the finale, but almost family friendly much of the rest of the time. I don't need to own it, but I'm glad I discovered it.


I also saw this at the cinema in the 80s and have never forgotten it, even though I have never seen it again anywhere.

I don't know whether if I did see it now it would seem dated, but remembering the storyline and comparing it to some of the terrible modern films I've seen on Zone Horror I should think it would stand up very well.

I can still remember his coffin sliding out and opening up and all the dead bodies becoming reanimated, and the blue lightning. Having seen hundreds of horror movies and still remembering this one, it must be good.


"One Dark Night" is a staple in the 1980's low budget horror genre. Filled with retro puns, clothing and scenery, "ODN" transports the viewer to a simpler time, when horror films were just that... Horror!

Nothing so intense that you can't understand whats going on, the film tells a dark fable of what happens when you mess with the dead. Well acted by it's stable of scream-queens, and a fine directorial job by Tom McLoughlin, whom revels in the time and makes you believe what he's presenting. There is no "Who done it?" and certainly no big twist at the end. It is straight-forward and in your face horror from beginning to end, with a lot of 80's humor thrown in for added spice. I give it "8" simply because some of the special effects fall short towards the end of the film, but at least there is no CGI... Perfect film for new fans to the 1980's horror genre, or anyone looking to re-live a fun night of classic horror bliss.


As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed the real terror starts.

This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great. Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable.

My Grade: B

Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for "the Being", "Frankestien's Bloody Terror", "Just Before Dawn", & "Devil Dog" Disc 2) Alternate director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes featurette


I was kinda surprised by the PG rating on the back of the DVD case. I certainly wouldn't want my kids watching this one. I think this would scare the crap out of a 10 year old.

Plot: A girl trying to fit in to the clique is hazed and tormented by the 'in crowd.' They talk her into spending the night in this creepy mausoleum (that reminded me of Phantasm...) and they proceed to torment her in the night. Little do they know, a recently deceased clairvoyant is coming back to life and raising the dead around them! It sounds awfully cheesy, but given the age and the budget, which was no doubt pretty small, this film is fun on many levels.

Watch for an early EG Daily as one of the in crowd brats. I enjoyed it and it scared my girlfriend.

7 out of 10, kids.


You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something).


I can't describe the feeling when I got this crappy VHS rental cassette in my hands about 20 years ago. Somehow I got my father to rent it for me and I watched it twice with my little brother. Yes, we got nightmares. This film was originally rated as PG in the US, in many other countries, including Finland, it was restricted under 18 or 16. The film was aimed to teenagers, but this must be the goriest PG-rated film ever. There's no bad language or nudity in it what so ever. Originally made in 1981, stayed on the shelves for a couple of years before release.

This is an A-class B-movie, a true, well made 80's horror flick. A bunch of college girls decide to spent a night in a mausoleum, not knowing that a supernatural evil awaits...

You can almost smell the rotting flesh and feel the atmosphere of this movie. It's campy, utterly stupid, but they just can't make these movies anymore. There is definitely a certain feel to this 80's horror genre. This one is still effectively spooky and entertaining after all these years.

The effects are just oozing quality by Ellis Burman Jr and Thomas R. Burman. The make-up effects play a big part in this flick, otherwise it would've been just a boring teen slasher.

It's now available on DVD at last and it's a Special Edition DVD including some extras too. Commentary track is interesting.

(In fact, this version isn't so special after all. Below average transfer on DVD, some glitches and scratches here and there) At first it was going to be released by the Blue Underground but unfortunately it was canceled, so Shriek Show released it without restoring the print. Too bad!)

Great date-movie!

Recommended!!!

Note! I only gave 8 out of 10 because of the "nostalgic values", otherwise 6 out of 10


I have great memories of this movie...

I was only 12 when it was released and it scared the bejesus out of me. I really miss my bejesus...

Zombies, graveyards, mausoleums, how can you go wrong? It's like Phantasm's retarded cousin.

This movie was released 1 year before the PG-13 rating was instituted.

I submit that One Dark Night is the GORIEST PG movie (not scariest, mind you) that has ever been released.

Can anyone come up with a gorier pick?

(FYI: I don't consider Poltergeist to be gorier...scarier, yes. But not gorier...)


Flashes of lightning; a sprawling cemetery; the name of Adam 'Batman' West: all pop up on screen before the opening credits are even over, and yet, despite these rather naff elements, One Dark Night isn't as cheesy as it might first seem.

Meg Tilly (Jennifer's sister) plays pretty student Julie, who reluctantly agrees to spend the night alone in a mausoleum as part of her initiation into exclusive high school clique The Sisters. What Julie doesn't realise is that the other 'sisters' plan to freak her out with some ghoulish pranksor that the most recent body to be interred in the mausoleum is that of 'psychic vampire' Raymar, who feeds off the life force of scared young women.

Admittedly, this isn't the most original of set-ups, but thankfully there are enough inventive touches to help set this film apart from the competition, my favourites being the macabre sight of everyday objects embedded in the walls of Raymar's apartment, and the creepy manner in which mouldy corpses float through the cold marble corridors of the mausoleum during the excellent finale. Hal Trussell's impressive steadicam cinematography and Tom Burman's wonderfully macabre special effects also add immensely to the chilling atmosphere.


This is my favourite movie of all time. And I always think of it as John Huston's requiem.

I must have seen it at least 20 times and never tire of it. The mood, the script, the singing, the dinner, it is like being invited into someone's home and observing the events and not able to participate even though you want to... It is a rare treasure, this movie and I cannot write enough praise for it.

It is cast incredibly well, with quite a few Abbey Theatre faces and also the wonderful tenor voice of Frank Patterson. Lady Gregory's poem recited in the movie is one of the most moving ever written. Anjelica's scene walking down the stairs as she listens to the song is one of the best performances every seen on film. I cry every time I see it..for all the right reasons.

We have all had love lost at an early age and weep for our young hopeful selves.

Donal McCann acted in far too few movies for my liking, he just loved stage work and stuck to it, and it is our loss that we do not have more of his performances on film as he does so much with this delicate role by expression and the portrayal of a deep love for his wife that will never be reciprocated and he conveys such inner sadness at knowing this.

If you want your movies action and plot packed avoid this, there really is no beginning, middle or end just a lens onto the characters at a dinner party in Dublin 80 years ago and all the little nuances and shadings of the personalities portrayed so beautifully.

Bravo to all who were involved in this production. 10 out of 10.


John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson.


I have watched thousands of movies in my life and I believe this movie is the most "perfect" movie that has ever been made. By perfect I mean the storytelling, the plot, the acting, the staging, the camera work, etc. (This is a lay opinion; I have no background in film production.) A lot of movies have perfect scenes, such as the bartender filing a report with the police officer in the movie Fargo. (Indeed, that scene could play well as a short.) In The Dead every scene is done to perfection, making the entire movie perfect. Perhaps, John Huston sold his soul to the Devil to make such a movie. Hopefully, Daniel Webster has gotten him out of the contract!


The entire movie, an artful adaptation of one of Joyce's "Dubliners" stories, takes place on the night of January 6 (Epiphany), 1906. Most of the film takes place at an annual party given by three spinsters (two sisters and their niece), where a group of upper-class Dubliners gather for an evening of music, recitations and dinner. While there is very little plot per se, the interaction and conversation among the group reveals much about Dublin in the early 20th century when the stirrings for independence were just beginning. The cast, all talented Irish stage actors with the exception of Anjelica Huston, are universally wonderful, and one actually feels he is a guest at the gathering himself. The poignant final scene, between Ms. Huston and the amazing Donal McCann, reveals much about the marriage of the characters. There is poignancy mixed with humor and insight, and for those who like quiet, thoughtful movies, "The Dead" is highly recommended. My wife is from Dublin, we make a ritual of watching this wonderful movie every January 6th. After many viewings it never fails to move me, and each time I glean something that I've missed before.


So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.

To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.

Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.


An exquisite film. They just don't make them like this any more! We eavesdrop on an upper middle class family in Dublin in the early part of the 20th century. They are hosting an after Christmas dinner for their friends and relatives. Their table talk is just idle chatter but it is so well written that one is engrossed. Away from the dinner table some fine piano playing helps to create an intimate atmosphere as if one were there as one of the guests. Perhaps a bit too perfect for an amateur player, the odd mistake here and there would have added to the magic of this film. No real story but real entertainment and an object lesson for up and coming film makers.


It's a short movie for such immense feelings. The last 20 or so minutes are among the most intense in the recent years of the industry. Huston (John) is dying and only love can make the difference. The actor's work in the long evening scene is absolutely marvellous.


The last film of John Huston, the great American director of the Irish descent is an adaptation of the last short story in the early collection "Dubliners", of the greatest writer ever came from Ireland. The film is a family affair. The dying director made it based on the script adapted by his son Tony Huston from one of the most poignant, beautiful and profound short story ever written in this language and considered by many THE BEST English language short story. John directed his daughter Anjelica in what could be her finest screen performance. The film is short, only 83 minutes. It's got no action sequences, no plot, it is almost non-eventful, and it may seem slow. The guests, friends and relatives come to the party that takes place in Dublin during the Epiphany week in January 1904, at the house of two elderly sisters who give annual dinner with music and dance. What viewers see for the first hour, is the ensemble conversation piece. The guests talk, listen to the music, discuss the latest opera premiere, and make jokes, sometimes awkward. Gradually, the conversation turns to the long dead friends or relatives the memory of whom never faded away.

This is the film you have to stay with, let it pull you in, listen to what and how the guests at the party say, how they communicate. Pay attention to the body languages, to the looks at their faces when they drift away from the light, laugh, and music of the present to the long gone but never in fact left most precious memories where the Dead of the title are not dead but forever young and so alive. If you do, you will be awarded with the final scene of such emotional power and impact that it will always stay with you. It will break your heart to pieces, pull them together and put it back transfixed. The film as well as Joyce's story centers on Gabriel Conroy (Donal McCann as James Joyce's alter ego gave a very moving understated performance) as one of the party guests who arrives with his wife Gretta (Anjelica Huston). Gabriel is still in love, feels close connection to and fascinated with her. It is after the party, he discovers that even after many years of closeness, he does not know all about her past, her pains, her regrets, and the unforgettable emotions and loss she had lived through as a young girl, and he is no part of. For the first time, he looks at her and thinks of her not as the indelible part of his existence but as another human being with her own inner world, her own loneliness and sadness, and for the first time, "a strange, friendly pity for her entered his soul." It is he who narrates the final most powerful and profound lines of the story: "Snow is general all over Ireland. . . falling faintly through the universe, and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

If you have not seen the film or read the Joyce's story, please do. They are truly the works of Art that leave the everlasting impression and would change something in you to the best.


Easily one of my three or four favorite films. Definitely one for the desert island. There is nothing `brilliant' about this film. Rather, it glows warm and welcoming. The audience is invited to a party and, like any good party, the joy comes in the interaction of the guests, and what you learn as you progress from one to the next. With apologies to Joyce, the film's title conjures up a number of ideas that keep audiences away. The film is not horrifying. It is not depressing. It is a beautiful look into a time that has past, within which people are growing up, and others are winding down. Some are frustrated, and others are serene. And all around, ever present throughout the evening, are the people, and the parts of people, that have been laid to rest. The words these exquisite actors are given to speak are perfection and, set to the music of the Irish brogue, are an auditory feast, particularly to us flat-toned Americans. About the lack of brilliance I referred to above, I take it back. There is no other word to describe the final scene between Anjelica Huston and Donal McCann. It speaks quiet volumes about  well, everything. Some lovely snowy evening, rent this film and just let it happen before you. No gunfights, no car chases, no dinosaurs  just film at its most sublime.


John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's beautiful short story, "The Dead", and made not only one of the most faithful literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema.

When I watched this movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen, marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction, costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story.

A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences.

Donal McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the most moving performances I've ever seen.

All in all, The Dead is a fine cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent.


There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit "The Dead" - Best Screen Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally, perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film, adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing, dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine anywhere else you would rather be than in this company.

Finally, of course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by Huston and McCann.

But then all the performances are extraordinary. This is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable, genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in "The Quiet Man"), brings to his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience.


For his last film, John Huston directed his daughter, Anjelica, in this adaptation of the story from James Joyce's "Dubliners", and he gave us one of his finest achievements to remember him by.

Joyce is about as impossible to film as anyone, but "The Dead" at least presents a traditional narrative to work with. Much (indeed, almost all) of the important information in the story lies in the spaces between the lines, in characters' thoughts and expressions -- there are big moments, but they're cerebral -- they're not the stuff of which movies are made. But somehow, Huston gets it right, and he manages a nearly flawless adaptation.

Anjelica is magnificent, and the movie is haunting and powerful.

Grade: A


In print this is one of the greatest short stories ever written, brought brilliantly and poetically to the screen by this father-son team, working together, sadly, for the first and last time.It is fitting that John Huston should end his career on a high note by bringing the work of one of his favorite author's to the screen, in what is easily the best Joyce screen adaptation. Huston made a career of adapting great works of literature to film, usually quite successfully. It is sad, and somewhat puzzling, that Tony Huston pretty much began and ended his career in film by adapting what would be his father's final project and picking up a well-deserved Oscar nomination in the process.

I once had the privilege of sitting in the company of the great screenwriter/playwright Horton Foote, who cited this film as one of his favorites in recent years (at the time it was still a fairly recent release). As a rather prolific screenwriter himself (and a brilliant screen adapter of his own works, as well as great authors such as Faulkner, Steinbeck and Harper Lee) he was obviously impressed with Tony Huston's first time effort, and possibly equally puzzled by his lack of output since then. If anyone has insights to share on the topic I'd be interested to hear more.


Not often it happens that a great director´s last movie becomes such a moving, brillantly performed and filmed masterpiece. The cast is excellent as well as the camerawork. What starts up as a merry coming-together of a group of well-educated citizens of an early-20th-century- Dublin turns into a dark, philosophic narration about all our fear from death and the sometimes dark shadows of the past. Thank You, Mister Huston, for this last piece of great cinema!


I believe John Houston's "The Dead" is a true classic. Not only was it Houston's final film, he is quoted as saying "all I know about film making is in this film." The story, closely adapted from "Dubliners" by James Joyce, is a great ensemble piece featuring sterling performances by Angelica Houston, John's daughter, and a cast of English and Irish actors who bring the story to life. This is a film that should be part of any serious collection, not only because it is visually elegant, but because the story is timeless and very appealing. The film is not hurried, nor is it charged with action. Rather, the story unfolds from within the characters, who bring light and meaning to the dialog. The end of the film is stunning, poetic, and haunting. I recommend "The Dead" without reservation as one of the finest films ever made.


This is really the only chance to see the magic of James Joyce's writing brought to life. His novels are all unfilmable (in any real sense) and this is the only long story he wrote. It was John Huston's last film and did not reach the screen until after he had died, and it is easy to see his touch of greatness. The Dead is poetical in its approach on the screen, telling us more about Ireland than any modern movie on the IRA and "the troubles" could ever hope to tell us. Hopefully more people will watch this film and get to experience the finest of both John Huston and James Joyce, and perhaps visit this story in your local bookstore (and discover that it is probably the greatest short story ever put on paper).


Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.


I've been waiting years for THE DEAD to come out on video, having pretty much worn my VHS copy to shreds. This is one of the most beautiful films ever made for the holidays. It takes place on the Feast of the Epiphany (Twelfth Night), and is a simple, poignant vignette of characters attending a dinner prepared by three Dublin women. Central to the story is a fairly loveless couple, a wife who once passionately loved a young man who died for her and a man who wants to feel the same kind of passion for his wife, but feels incapable. All of the performances are stunning, and the script weaves among the various characters at the dinner beautifully. Of course, its source material is James Joyce's short story of the same title, and much of his narrative structure is kept fully intact. John Huston's long career as one of Hollywood's greatest filmmakers had a truly fitting finale with this film, which was scripted by his son, Tony Huston; stars his daughter, Anjelica Huston; and is dedicated to his wife, Maricella. Thank you to Lions Gate for picking up the rights to this film and releasing it on DVD. For lovers of all things Irish or for folks looking for a literate, subtle, yet incredibly moving holiday film, this is a true gem.


James Joyce, arguably, could write some of the best sentences in the English language, and his short story, "The Dead," which ends his collection The Dubliners, containsin its finaleperhaps the most perfect paragraph in the English language. It's fitting that John Huston, who held back in attempting to film this story, ended his career with it. As with The Red Badge of Courage and The Man Who Would Be King, Huston revered the literary source but made the adaptation cinematic. And with "The Dead" (which was completed after Huston's death by his son, Tony Huston) we get something nearly perfect in the marriage of literature and cinema.

Valuing all that cinema can do, as one of the commentators points out "this isn't The African Queen" (nor does it need to be), this is the kind of movie that is uncompromising for an audience. All of us slogged through Portrait of an Artist in school, and one needs to bring the maturity of appreciating how words and images in and of themselves can touch us. As with silent films, Huston seeks something pure here, and he works with the confidence of his many years and leaves the world a masterpiece that equals Joyce's original.

Many veterans of the Irish theater world are recruited to bring the story of a man filled with self-importance (and mock self-doubt) that's reinforced by the hosts of an annual party on the eve of the Feast of the Epiphany. What's in store for Gabriel Conroy is an evening of celebration, song, dance, poetry where he's asked to give the annual toast to the two sisters and their niece who host the party. He's distracted by the task wanting to rise to the occasion, and this distraction leaves him vulnerable for an earth-shattering experience, handed to him by his wife. While his ego is shaken when he hears a story from his wife's past, it's also a gift where all that seems to have mattered throughout the evening is swept away by the realization of impending mortality for all who are living.

And rather than trying to make the last famous paragraph of the story "cinematic," Huston brings in a voice over and we hear those incredible words recited as we watch "the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling." It's the perfect solution to a filmmaker's adaptation.

The cast is all we would hope. Since this is basically a testament to the power of the written word and how it brings us together through common experience each performer seems elevated by their role. Anjelica Huston as Gretta Conroy has a wide range to play, and her account of a young boy who once loved her sears not only Gabriel Conroy, but the audience as well.

When I think of Anjelica Huston, it's the transformation she makes in this film; and when I think of her father, it's this film I remember first.


The Argentinian music poet, Atahualpa Yupanqui, once said that some folk music repeats similarly at any country of the world. They look the same but everybody consider them as their own folk music...

This film, as I feel it, is about the same music that repeats all over the world at some time of each country's history. First, a few listen it playing and try to make the others hear it. Then some, believe that they hear it, but they don't. Then, nobody says anything and some people appear to listen to it. And others recognize that they have heard it, but didn't think that others might be hearing it. Finally, everybody listen to the same music, and suddenly it doesn't sound any more...

Love and poetry, as a real nationalism and the legacy of a father to his children...

Why would he call the film, The Dead when nobody dies? The Spanish translation of the title refused to follow the same rule and we call it Dubliners, following James Joyce's title...

A nice 1900 Irish filmed postcard!


Saw this film at the NFT in London where it was showing as part of the BFI's John Huston season. I wasn't really sure what to expect and the first few minutes of the film gave very little away. In fact the rest of the film continued to give little away! No real plot, no action, no suspense, very little drama and, except for a short section at the very end, no scenery.

The result of lack of all of these features was, however, a wonderful film. I don't fully understand why, but I think that its understated nature made the film almost completely perfect. The acting, script and, most important of all, the casting were all spot on and I can't remember walking away from a cinema feeling so good, but I still can't work out why. I just know that I will be getting the DVD (this is one of those films that will, I am sure, be just as good on the small screen as the cinema experience, provided that you can find somewhere quiet to watch it!) and I will be watching it again soon. I will be also interested to find out what my family and friends think of it. I'm sure that it will not be everybody's choice but I am convinced that a large number will agree with my view.

9 out of 10.


John Huston made many remarkable and memorable films. Those most often and easily recalled were released long before his passing in 1987. It was that year, however, that reminded us that Huston was still at the top of his game as evinced by his faithful adaptation of James Joyce's acclaimed novella "The Dead."

Once long ago, a very wise man called Doc asked me, "Doesn't "The Dead" seem remarkably more vivid and bright than any of the other stories in Dubliners?" I tend to think that it is. The story and film both contain some of Joyce's societal comments and criticisms, but for the most part, paint a warm and loving portrait of an Ireland Joyce himself so often railed against and would shortly leave.

Huston's handling of protagonist Gabriel Conroy, who realizes the world as he sees it is nothing more than an illusion, is simply remarkable. To claim that the film lacks plot is to miss the point. As with any of Joyce's Dubliners, plot--while most certainly present--is not the focus. Plot is merely a tool for the conveyance of the protagonist's epiphany. In addition to a seeming lack in action, there is quite frankly little dialogue in Joyce's short story for the director to lean on. Huston's ability to translate what Joyce puts in words into visuals is quite possibly the movie's greatest triumph. Feelings, thoughts...Gabriel's discomfort during the dance...all these intangibles leap to life and come within the viewer's grasp in Huston's portrayal.

To claim that Huston has softened his writer's criticism of society again misses the mark. While "The Dead" may be painted with a cheerful hue, the complacency and pretense of the film's characters is but a comment on society on a smaller scale: we are the toddling old aunts; the embarrassing drunk; the tenor with the sore throat; the wife with the sad, rain soaked secret; even the self-deluded middle-aged man.

But "The Dead" belies its title. It is not a dark story. Nor is it really that bleak. Forget for a moment the snow falling on the living and the dead and the inherent symbolism in it; forget the shambles of a life Gabriel awakes to at the film's end: it is only with the destruction of the illusions Gabriel has of himself and of his world that he can truly go forward. Such is the central point of the film. Such is the central point of our lives.


"The Dead" truly is a work of art. Clearly, John Huston meant to show that he was still "in the full glory of some passion" by making it, even as his body was failing him. This movie is powerfully affecting and lingers in the mind long after it is done. Reading the Joyce short story certainly adds more depth to the characters, especially Gabriel's inner turmoil, but the essence is all there in this film. As a statement by an artist of his love of life and his craft, "The Dead" stands alone.


Because of the depth of his character studies and complexity of story lines, James Joyce's works do not easily translate into film. Yet John Huston, in his last film before his death, achieved a perfect translation of Joyce's story. He received great support from his son, as writer, and daughter, as actress.


Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about everything.

It is not possible to watch this final scene without simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of fellow beings.


John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as "The Misfits" and "African Queen," directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, "The Dead" tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although "shine" is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). "The Dead" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend.


This is possibly the most perfect film I have ever seen - in acting, adaptation and direction. It is self-contained and of a kind, so there is no point in saying that it is better or worse than other great films, just that it can stand by itself as a perfect work of art.

And it was fun watching confused horror fans getting up and walking out!


I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it. It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away in some film vault forever.

Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The Dead' are all but forgotten?


A rare exception to the rule that great literature makes disappointing films, John Huston's beautiful farewell to life and the movies is almost entirely true to the narrative and the spirit of James Joyce's short story, a tender meditation on love, death and time expressed in the events of a Twelfth Night party in middle-class Dublin circa 1910. Unpromising as the material might appear, the film succeeds by its willingness to tell the story on its own quiet, apparently inconsequential terms, rather than force a conventional cinematic shape of plot points and dramatic incidents upon it. Only once is the wrong note struck, when old Miss Julia (a trained singer and music teacher whose voice is supposed to have been cracked by age, not shattered) sings so badly that the audience burst out laughing when I saw this at the cinema. Fortunately, the mood of hushed and gentle melancholy is re-established in plenty of time for the moment of revelation between the married couple Gabriel and Gretta Conroy in a hotel bedroom as snow begins to fall outside. It's a sad story, I suppose, but the kind that leaves you feeling better, not blue. Especially recommended as a date movie - for people in love who aren't frightened of confronting the sweetness and sadness of life.


When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.

"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.

I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.


At times I really wonder when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!

The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.

Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.

And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.

I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.

I also liked the acting  Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.

People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.

And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia.


No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.


This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie.

Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.


Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction.

The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.

I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.


I agree with "johnlewis", who said that there is a lot going on between the lines in this film. While I do think the pacing of this film could be improved, I do think that the complexity of the relationships between the characters is fascinating.

Examples :

Pierre is going to marry his cousin, even though his love for her seems very cousin-y ?

Pierre and his stepmother have a rather...curious relationship.

Pierre, Lucie, and Thibault seem to have a triangular relationship, and the actual points to the triangle are not quite certain...

Lucie's brother is a bit of a eunuch, or is he ?

And Isabelle, who is she really ??

Overall, I think it was worth my time. An interesting film, and one that makes me want to read Melville.


I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts  the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography  the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience.


Leos Carax has made 3 great movies: Boys Meet Girls, Mauvais Sang, Les Amants du Pont Neuf. In fact those films were not that great but it has the violence of youth, the beauty of juvenile wilderness. Carax in these three movies was well aware of what cinema was, but he tried to make his own vision of the art, without thinking about about all he have seen, but using it and melting it into his times. Pola X is a very different movie because Carax made Les Amants du Pont Neuf, a monstruosity of 20 millions dollars, a film that has destroyed everything on its way. After such a movie you can't do another one in the same point of view. So Leos Carax has to changed, and he did. The movie isn't as beautiful as its first, it's more reasonable, no more studio, no more dreamed Paris, Carax has entered at last reality. It's not clean anymore, it's not poetic characters. Carax have become a romantic in the german sense of it.


Leos Carax is brilliant and is one of the best film and camera guys in the business so it should come as no surprise that Pola X is an almost perfect filming of the most gut wrenching story ever. Seriously. If I could have figured out some way to climb inside my video monitor, I would have thrashed Pierre to within an inch of his life. No one has the right to be that self absorbed and that stupid, both at the same time, except maybe Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. After spending 134 minutes with Pierre, I need a large glass of brandy. Never have I been so angry at a main character. Ok, having said that, Pola X is a stunning movie with one of the few totally honest sex scenes I've ever seen in any film....which means another piece of brilliant filmmaking....and I'm talking graphic here, by the way. Pola X will beat the hell out of you, though, so make sure you're up for it if you decide to watch it.


I've tried to reconcile why so many bad reviews of this film, while the vast majority of reviews are given a rating of between 7 and 10. The reason may be this film is kind of hard to describe in a positive review, although a few have done that quite nicely already. This film is confusing, depressing, and doesn't have a happy ending. I still gave Pola X a rating of 10, because it is basically for me literature and art combined on film. That is really my favorite kind of filmmaking. I've only seen two of Carax's films: this one and Mauvis Sang. As with this film, I'm being somewhat pretentious when I call this one of Carax's best films- but I am. Carax has a minimalist style. If that type of film does not appeal to you and is boring, then it would be best not to watch this. But Pola X was less minimalist than Mauvis Sang, so it had quite a lot of intensity for a thriller- at least for my taste. I found it quite interesting and absorbing. The two lead roles did an excellent job acting. (I mean the lead and the young woman he thought was his half sister.) Catherine D. is always great, but her role was not very large or significant in the story. But everyone did a fine job. I thought the cult stuff was great. It may have not been very believable, but that is due to its being rather abstract. There is a lot going on between the lines in this film. This is a very Freudian psycho-thriller.


This is not a film is a clever, witty and often heart touching movie. It's a retrospective of a failed relationship between Michael Connor (Michael Leydon Campbell) and his estranged Irish girlfriend Grace Mckenna. Michael down on his luck decides to make a documentary replaying his whole relationship and what went wrong. He exploits his friendship with an actor he met at the gym Nadia (Nadia Dajani) who he gets to play Grace. The concept of this film is very original. Michaels relationship is shown from every point whether it's a high or low. Michael Leydon Campbell pulls off a fantastic performance that makes you want to help him find Grace. If fact most of the characters pull off great performances except the puzzler. The puzzler is needed to move the plot along yet seems too surreal to exist in a coffee shop. His monologues are often overdrawn and pointless. This is proved when he says "Out of this chaos, we're all trying to create order. And out of the order, meaning. But in reality there is no such thing as meaning. Something only has meaning if we make it have meaning."

The commentary saves this movie. The commentary is done in the vain of This is Spinal Tap and has Michael and his brother explain the problems they had while making the film. Michael offers a very funny self conscious commentary that makes for some very good belly laughs.

Overall I'd give this movie a 7/10.


I was plagued by nightmares involving Sesame Street and the Muppet Show during my childhood. I loved the programs, but when I slept, I'd dream about muppets not unlike the ones on TV...but not quite the ones on TV.

They would speak gibberish and laugh and sing while eating each other and killing each other. They'd take a bite of their cute felt flesh and it would tear apart followed by arterial bleeding. NICE! But that was the past...I LOVE THIS SHOW! I saw Peter Jackson's MEET THE FEEBLES years ago and wondered why there wasn;t similar work out there. Well here it is, as sick, twisted and somehow socially potent the old Hobbit's vision.

If you like this show, and you haven't seen MEET THE FEEBLES, get it on Amazon or some such film source. You're in for a treat.

By the way, Clarence would totally kick Triumph's dog ass.


I'm torn about this show. While MOST parts of it I found to be HILARIOUS, other parts of it I found to be stupid and simply shock for shock sake. The off the wall parody of some of the cartoons are brilliant as indeed are a lot of the scenes with the children. However, I don't think it's clever getting little children to say rude things. It's not that I think "oh poor children, they're being exploited" - it's just that it's really not clever!! It's something that ANYONE could do, therefore making it as simple and pointless as making a paper airplane. In order to make this show better they would have to stick to the natural responses from children, which I think can be funnier than the scripted at time.

By far the funniest part of Wonder Showzen is Clarence, the blue puppet who wonders around the streets talking to and annoying strangers. It's really funny and it's mostly improvised. Seeing him in a long scene about the importance of patience test the patience of an EXTREMELY patient man, was by far the funniest scene in my opinion.

You should watch this show though because all in all it's very funny, even if it is stupid at times.


Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the pertinent truths it expresses.

I write and play music for a living and this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way.

I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere.


I love this show. My girlfriend was gonna get an abortion until we both watched Wonder Showzen one night. Luckily, she killed herself before the baby was born. Though technically I think it was considered a murder-suicide.

My first thoughts upon seeing Wonder Showzen? Now I know what God watches when He jerks off all the time.

Wonder Showzen is to television what a toaster in the bathtub is to my self-esteem.

You know how George W. Bush makes speaking gaffes all the time? Tyler wouldn't. Tyler's good. Tyler cuts his nails. He's Tyler. He's good. Tyyyllerrr...


Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!

------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

"User Comment Guidelines

Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title.

What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments"


And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host. Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street, tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very funny show that I hope lasts for years to come.

My rating: *** 1/4 out of ****. 30 mins. TV MA.


Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene

The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison.

If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)

The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.


"Quai des Orfevres", directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Clouzot, is a film to treasure because it is one of the best exponents of French film making of the postwar years. M. Clouzot, adapting the Steeman's novel, "Longtime Defence", shows his genius in the way he sets the story and in the way he interconnects all the characters in this deeply satisfying movie that, as DBDumonteil has pointed out in this forum, it demonstrates how influential Cluzot was and how much the next generation of French movie makers are indebted to the master, especially Claude Chabrol.

The crisp black and white cinematography by Armand Thirard has been magnificently transferred to the Criterion DVD we recently watched. Working with Clouzot, Thirard makes the most of the dark tones and the shadows in most of the key scenes. The music by Francis Lopez, a man who created light music and operettas in France, works well in the context of the film, since the action takes place in the world of the music halls and night clubs.

Louis Jouvet, who is seen as a police detective, is perfect in the part. This was one of his best screen appearances for an actor who was a pillar of the French theater. Jouvet clearly understood well the mechanics for the creation of his police inspector who is wiser and can look deeply into the souls of his suspects and ultimately steals the show from the others. In an unfair comment by someone in this page, Jouvet's inspector is compared with Peter Falk's Columbo, the television detective. Frankly, and no disrespect to Mr. Falk intended, it's like comparing a great champagne to a good house wine.

Bernard Blier is perfect as the jealous husband. Blier had the kind of face that one could associate with the man consumed with the passion his wife Jenny Lamour has awakened in him. Martineau is vulnerable and doesn't act rationally; he is an easy suspect because he has done everything wrong as he finds in the middle of a crime he didn't commit, but all the evidence points to the contrary.

The other great character in the film is Dora, the photographer. It's clear by the way she interacts with Jenny where her real interest lies. Simone Renant is tragically appealing as this troubled woman and makes an enormous contribution to the film. Suzy Delair, playing Jenny, is appealing as the singer who suddenly leaps from obscurity to celebrity and attracts the kind of men like Brignon, the old lecher.

The film is one of the best Clouzot directed during his distinguished career and one that will live forever because the way he brought all the elements together.


This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French "Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.

This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.


First of all,there is a detective story:"légitime défense" by Belgian Stanislas André Steeman whose "l'assassin habite au 21" Clouzot had already transferred to the screen in 1942,with Pierre Fresnay and the same actress Suzy Delair.Steeman complained about Clouzot's adaptation for both movies.The movie from 1942 was excellent,but the "detective story" side had been kept,so why complaining?As for "Quai des orfèvres",Clouzot was now in a new phase of his brilliant career.After having directed "le corbeau" and been blacklisted,he had a lot more to say than a simple whodunit.Steeman complained essentially about the poor detective ending,which I will not reveal of course,but Clouzot focused on the social vignettes,on his characters's psychology,and he did not give a damn about the puzzle à la Agatha Christie.By doing so,he becomes the genuine predecessor of CLaude Chabrol who has always been closer to him than to Alfred Hitchcock whom he admires much though. Suzy Delair has great screen presence,and you will love the song she really sings(she was a singer too)"avec son tralala".Bernard Blier gives ,as ever,a sparing of gestures and words performance,and he really pulls it off .Two characters are particularly interesting and disturbing:the first one,Dora,the photographer:she takes pictures of female models ,and Clouzot,by subtle touches,reveals us she's a lesbian.Of course,the word is never uttered(How could it be in 1947?) The police chief (fabulous Louis Jouvet) tells her:"You and me,WE are not lucky with women."The portrait of this cop is very detailed:we learn a lot of things about him,not necessary connected with the Delair/Blier plot:he's a widower ,with a son he adores and who runs into school difficulties,particularly in geometry.So we get to know all the characters in depth.One of the most important manifesto of post-war French cinema.


The Director loves the actress and it shows. The actress inhabits the character, whom we love at first sight and sound. The character loves her jealous unprepossessing husband and he loves her. His childhood friend secretly loves his wife and the fact that his friend is a beautiful woman makes the love tragic and ironic. His wife is jealous of his childhood friend and thinks her attentions are out of secret love for her husband.

Then there is a murder and the investigating police lieutenant, who loves only his bi-racial son, and resents being taken from his company by the above characters, who have had some unpleasant contact with the deceased and are all lying to one degree or another, unravels the mystery with some of the most precise and authentic procedural detail ever captured on film.

And then there are the atmospherics of a post-war Paris, where coal is in short supply, music is filled with erotic longing and wistful memory, and innocence has long ago been washed away by the rain.

All of this in a milieu of magicians whose tricks don't always work, dogs who walk on their hind feet and express music criticism, hungry news reporters and exhausted cops.

And then there are many of the finest actors of their generation who have been through some very bad years directed by, to come full circle, a man who is in love with his lead actress and who, with full justification, was a respected friend of Picasso.

I've seen this film often and I love all of them and it.


A nice, humorous mix of music hall (in the first third mostly) and police procedural mystery as the various suspects' stories start to collapse. The final exposure of the murder may come as a surprise if you don't watch closely. A gritty look at Paris of the time. You can ignore the final scene (the Hollywood ending). Louis Jouvet is best as the police inspector who seems to be just passing through, but is really on top of things.


The extraordinarily adorable Suzy Delair plays a statuesque performer obsessed with succeeding in the theater. Her husband and accompanist, played by Bernard Blier, is a composed but jealous man. When he finds out in a less than preferable way that his flashy wife has planned a rendezvous with a lecherous old businessman with the intention of advancing her career, he loses all control and threatens the businessman with murder. Now, at that point, I must stop describing the film to you because it skates on such thin ice with its twists, revelations, ambiguities and suspense that to imply any of it would endanger it. I am not sure how good or bad that is for this French police procedural emanating from the song- and-dance community, though it is certainly interesting that what we do know throughout is who did not do it. We just don't know who did.

The story depends upon the procedure of following clues, where ideal alibis fail and where cautiously created fabrications and deceptions disintegrate. Interestingly, this is a suspense film in which suspense is generated in spite of the knowledge one would traditionally think too much too soon.

Quay of the Goldsmiths is the least dark of Henri-Georges Clouzot's films. It's nowhere near as sinister as the shocking Les Diaboliques, as tragic as the riveting Wages of Fear or as eery as Le Corbeau. Maybe it is due to the vibrance of the dance halls and theater settings of 1940s France, which all work as the milieu of this crime thriller.

Clouzot both understands and approves of his characters, even the more rotten ones, where he has more of a vindictive streak with his other films. Where he may have had understanding for the scheming women in Les Diabolique or the truck drivers who sink to the level of risking horrible death in order to oust themselves from miserable life in The Wages of Fear, there isn't necessarily support or agreement on the part of the filmmaker, for these are characters who plainly made the direct decisions that determine their fate. All the characters in this more settling film have scenes and moments that endear us to them, even the harsh, cold detective played by Louis Jouvet, who worries about his young adoptive son amid all the trouble and despair that happens in his life at any time with the drop of a hat.

There is humor and unabashed sexiness, the latter mostly on the part of Delair, that neutralize the pressure to a degree. Clouzot was quietly practicing his craft, patient till he made his unrelenting later films, in which he would permit his audiences no pardon from the tension.


H.G. Cluozot had difficulties working in France after he had made "Le Corbeau" in 1943 which was produced by the German company and later judged by French as a piece of anti-French propaganda. Louis Jouvet, an admirer of Clouzot's work, invited him to direct a thriller "Quai des Orfevres" where he played an ambiguous police inspector investigating a murder that happened in Paris Music Hall. Without each other knowledge, the seductive cabaret singer Jenny Lamoure (Suzy Delair) and her jealous piano-accompanist husband Maurice who is madly in love with her (Bertrand Blier, father of director Bertrand Blier) trying to cover up (without each other's knowledge) what they believe to be their involvement in the murder? Enters tenacious policeman (Louis Jouvet) who is determined to discover the truth. Jouvet practically stole the movie with wonderfully cynic and sentimental in the same time performance. "His character, his eagle-like profile and his unique way of speaking made him unforgettable." "Quai des Orfevres", witty and atmospheric observation of human weaknesses was a great comeback of H.G. Cluozot, the fine director, "French Hitchcock".


Is it a murder mystery? Is it a police procedural? Is it a back-stage look at seedy French music halls? Quai des Orfevres is all of these, but more than anything else it's an amusing comedy of infidelity, jealousy and love, set in post-WWII Paris. It may be surprising that Henri- Georges Clouzot, the director of such grim films as Le Corbeau or such suspenseful nail- biters as Diabolique and The Wages of Fear, is the director of this one. Clouzot, however, was a shrewd film-maker. "In a murder mystery," he tells us, 'there's an element of playfulness. It's never totally realistic. In this I share Hitchcock's view, which says, 'A murder mystery is a slice of cake with raisins and candied fruit, and if you deny yourself this, you might as well film a documentary.'" Quai des Orfevres is a wonderful film, and it's no documentary.

Jenny Martineau (Suzy Delair) is an ambitious singer at music halls and supper clubs. She's a flirt, she's sees nothing too wrong with using a bit of sex as well as talent to get a contract. Her stage name is Jenny Latour. And she really loves her husband, Maurice Martineau (Bernard Blier). Martineau is something of a sad sack. He's her accompanist and arranger. He's a bit balding, a bit chubby and jealous to a fault. Then we have their neighbor, the photographer Dora Monnier (Simone Renant). She's blond, gorgeous (think of Rita Hayworth) and capable. She and Martineau have been friends since they were children together. Dora, however, is definitely not thinking just of friendship when she looks at Jenny. Then comes along Georges Brignon (Charles Dullin), a wizened, rich and dirty old man, who often has Dora take "art" photographs of his young female proteges whom he poses himself. He offers a contract for a film to Jenny, and suggests a dinner at his home to discuss the details. Jenny is more than willing. Maurice is furious and forbids it. Jenny shouts right back at him, "You're jealous of the rich! Well, I want my share of their dough. I'm all for royalty!" "You're dad was a laborer," Maurice shouts back. "So what? Under Louis XV, I'd have been Madame de Pompadour! I'd have heated up their tights!"

And after Brignon is found dead with a smashed champagne bottle next to his bleeding skull, there's Dora to try to make things safe for Jenny. But wait. Inspector Antoine gets the case. Antoine (Louis Jouvet) is a tall, tired, middle-aged bachelor with sore feet. He has seen it all. He served in "the colonies" with the Foreign Legion and returned with an adopted baby and malaria. The child is now about eight-years old and Antoine dotes on him. One of the first things Antoine discovers is not only did someone brain Brignon with a bottle, someone shot him in the heart. Who did it? Before long Jenny, Maurice and Dora all are making up alibis, lying and, at one or another point, confessing. How will Antoine discover the murderer? Will we have a chance to see some great music hall songs sung by Jenny Latour? Everything becomes clear, but only with time and Detective Antoine's persistence. We are left with many kinds of love leading to all kinds of motives, from hair-trigger jealousy to longing glances...and all played with a nice mixture of Gallic amusement.

Clouzot takes us to a Paris of seedy but not threatening neighborhoods, to downtrodden music publishers where tunes are played on the piano for buyers, to restaurants with discrete private dining rooms. Most of all, he takes us to the music hall where Jenny Latour often performs. We can see Jenny as she sings, with couples in the seats and single men wearing their coats and hats in standing room. And everyone smokes. The first third of the film, in fact, takes place largely in this milieu. With Jenny singing about "Her petite tra-la-la, her sweet tra-la-la," we follow her from trying out the song at the publishers to a rehearsal to a saucy performance with Jenny in a feathered hat, a corset, gartered stockings and not much else.

Delair, Blier and Renant all do wonderful jobs, but it Louis Jouvet who holds everything together. He was a marvelous actor who disliked making films. The stage was his world, and he took on films only if he happened to like the director and to make money to finance his stage work. Jouvet was tall with a long face and broad cheekbones. He was not conventionally handsome but he had what it takes to dominate a scene. For a look at how skillfully he could play comedy, watch him in Drole de Drame. He's a fascinating actor. At one point he says, "I've taken a liking to you, Miss Dora Monnier." "Me?" she asks. "Yes. Because you and I are two of a kind. When it comes to women, we'll never have a chance." Jouvet brings all kinds of nuances to that line, from rueful regret to a gentle amusement.


Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs.


This film is so lovingly made you want to be part of it forever. The flics are straight but not without malice, the goods are transparent and evildoers are hardly there. Even the "cabaret" are so naive they'll make you daydream with nostalgia in comparison to anything available on TV. Blier is fine, if a bit one sided. Louis Jouvet is perfect, you just can't have a better copper. He has the best line: "My dad cleaned other people's dirt, and I do the same". Susy Delair is unbearable, but I guess in part it's the songs, wardrobe and hairdo. Simone Renant, on the contrary, makes a great femme fatale, if a bit silent. I didn't realize she may be a lesbian as IMDb user dbdumonteil and others rightly suggest.


First, the obviousas a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY  is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY  is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful.

It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY .Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberancenot only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception.

Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traitshis clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air .Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real lifemixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observationit's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.

QUAY  is multifacetedit is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine.

The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery.

As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY  is very true to Clouzot's naturea sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was firstclass when he filmed somethinghe knew what to shoot, what to choosesee the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious.

Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition.

Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomymuch like a menacing bird of preysomewhat like Van Cleefyet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY 's sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet moviewhich is an astounding quality in itself).

Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.

To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much.


One of the best film I ever saw.

The performance of Louis Jouvet is fantastic. He really 'fill' his part, and this is wonderful. He's such a good actor that you can't think of anyone else to take his part.

And both Suzy Delair and Bernard Blier are good as standard french people, trying to defend themselves in the struggle born with a murder...

The story is breathtaking and well built. You can feel the ambiance of Paris for that period (which is about 1930-40), between two wars... The clubs, the old little buildings, the neighbors.

All those things contribute to make a great movie.


Henri-Georges Clouzot's film is quiet an example of the french transition cinema. A film between the realism of the postwar cinema and the full-of-magic and symbolism nouvelle vague. With some spots of the American classic films (but not imitating it) the director tales us a story about love, crime and the importance of points of view. We can find great actors too (Suzy Delair is impeccable).

Is interesting too, how we can find aspects of this film nowadays. Quai des Orfèvres inheritance is palpable in Woody Allen tradition. Plunging a crime situation in a picturesque environment. The naive ending is also typical in Steven Spielberg's good-ending films. And finally I would like to point out, the deja voo sensation during the photography session between Jenny Lamour (Suzy Delair) and Dora Monier (Simone Renant) in which the first one confess that she thinks her husband is being unfaithful and exactly with the woman who is photographing her. That scene is exactly the one between Natalie Portman and Julia Roberts in Closer (Mike Nichols, 2004).


Great artists, always suffered while they were young. I could mention Mozart and Beethoven, but that is not the point.

This movie was made by H-G Clouzot whose family wanted him to succeed in the Law professions.

Its main star is Louis Jouvet who studied and practiced as as pharmacist before becoming "The Greatest Actor" and also director of France's Theater before and after WWII.

They both had health problems. Clouzot had TB while young, Jouvet had cardiac problems and died on a theater..

Such events shape the character of men (and women, of course). One might even say that today's Artists are so poor, because they had never suffered and fought for their lives.

To me, this is the greatest of Clouzot's movies. "Wages of Fear" is greater in "suspense", "Diabolique" also has more "suspense" and a better plot and is more about "female evil".

Quai des Orfèvres is more human. Clouzot was falsely accused by De Gaulle's entourage (mostly communists and Jews) of collaboration with the Nazis and banned from making films until until De Gaulle left France's Government in early 1946. De Gaulle came back in 1958, as President.

The main characters are all good souls: Jenny L'Amour may perform as a "putain" on stage, but she is not a "whore" (dictionaires make synonyms of those words, but they are not the same), loves her husband, and refuses the slight "advances from her (presumably Lesbian) friend Dora, the photographer.

Maurice the husband is jealous and timid, but runs away from the scene of the crime. He is a coward because he fell in love with a woman and traded an eventually more upscale career for love..

Antoine, the detective (interpreted by the great Louis Jouvet, basically a stage actor, performs in this French "Gray" not Noir, as well as E.G. Robinson in "Double Indemnity") shows flair for pseudo criminals, tenderness for a Negro son(?), and compassion for the true author of the crime, because he remembers that is father cleaned the latrines at some nobleman's château!!

Clouzot was capable of slapping an actor's face in order to put him in the right frame of mind, but deep inside he was very human.

I have his horoscope in front of me. He had Venus in Sagittarius which means open-heartedness, devotion, charity and altruism. For those who do not believe in Astrology, my most sincere apologies...