I don't see that much wrong with this movie. Granted, the principal singers might not be Luciano Pavarotti and Maria Callas, but they can certainly carry a tune. Burt Bacharach and Hal David are talented songwriters and I happen to love their songs, especially "The World Is A Circle", "The Things That I Will Not Miss", and "Question Me An Answer". Some people claim that Hermes Pan's choreography is ghastly and that the snowy mountain sets look as if they were made of plastic; I disagree on both counts. I've seen powdered snow before and the snow in those mountain scenes looked realistic to me. And most of all, in this film's defense, it is appropriate for a family audience (at least I remember it being that way when I saw it on Christmas Day a few years ago.) With all the outcry over sex and violence in the cinema these days, I find it refreshing to note that this film deserves its G-rating. And they don't say that naughty "F" word every ten minutes like some films I've seen. Thank God. So although this film may not be everyone's cup of tea, it does have some redeeming value and I give it ten points out of a possible ten. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


This was one of my favorites as a child. My family had the 8-track tape soundtrack!! It took us years (until I was in my 20s) for us to get a video of the movie (my dad taped it from HBO or something). Every summer when we go to the beach (my mom, brother, sister and I) we lay on the beach and sing all the songs from this movie!!! LOVED IT!!!


I went to the cinema in 1973 when the film was released, I was 11 at the time. I remember how much I enjoyed it and wanted to live in Shangri-la, that's how naive and young I was. I recently came across a video of the film I had recorded off television some years ago. I watched it again and am not ashamed to admit I still enjoy it as much now as I did 29 years ago. I also enjoy listening to the words of the songs, because it makes me think that one day we could live in a place where the sound of guns don't pound in our ears and if we look at our reflection - we should be happy with what we see. This is what I call a "feel good" film because I feel happy after watching it. Maybe I am still naive but it makes me happy and I'm sure it will make you happy if you watch it with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is - a good, family film. I must be one of the few people who has this film on VHS PAL video - and DVD (self-made). I recorded it on DVD as the videotape recording from TV was starting to wear thin. I still watch it from time to time.


The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own "Lost Horizon".


It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like "Leonard Maltin" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it.


It amazes me that production companies will sue because of reproductions they will not supply. I've been looking for this movie on DVD for a while and VHS for years. One can get all sorts of movies on line...old movies, new movies... but it all targets a particular group. This movie is very nostalgic for many. I'm not sure why I can't get a copy. Maybe if enough people will write in, the copyright holder will get a clue. It's about time for this to happen. Yes, it's date, but so is The Wizard of OZ. It doesn't seem like this should be so difficult. So, for now, I'll keep seeing those illegal copies on search engines like many others.


I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.


The retelling of a classic story is set to the music of Burt Bacharach and lyrics of Hal David. The actors seem like real people in this fairytale of the outside world meeting with mystical Shangra-la. It is a joy to watch Bobby Van, whose acting puts me in mind of Red Buttons, and, as always, George Kennedy (Cool-Hand Luke) who always manages to carry gravitas in his roles.

The surprise here is Charles Boyer as the elder High Lama. Who would have known?

All-star cast including Michael York and Olivia Hussey makes this work a keeper for those of us who cherish people.


As a film buff, I obviously had read all the excruciating reviews and funny, sarcastic comments about this film (my favourite being Woody Allen's quip "If I had my life to live over again I wouldn't change anything ... except for seeing the musical remake of Lost Horizon"). Therefore I've never been able to watch it without smirking at the choreography/set/songs etc. Just recently I came across a widescreen DVD and watched it for the first time in years, along with a friend who had never heard of the film's reputation. HE really enjoyed it, and - after trying to block out all the negative prejudices I obviously had about the film - so did I. There is nothing especially bad about Lost Horizon, and it is far more enjoyable and watchable than many other early 1970's movies. It isn't even especially camp. The lyrics to some of the songs are rather repetitive and simplistic, but this isn't really apparent when hearing them for the first time or having the flaws pointed out in advance so you are ready to scoff at them. As for all the reviewers who claimed the cast cannot sing in tune, this criticism falls apart since Liv Ullmann, Olivia Hussey and Peter Finch were dubbed (brilliantly too, as the vocals match their speaking voices perfectly), and Sally Kellerman has a really lovely and totally unique singing style. Vocally, Kellerman's duet with Olivia Hussey on "The Things I Will Not Miss" is excellent. Special mention should be made of the legendary Hollywood star Charles Boyer's brilliant performance as the High Lama - and his comments about mankind destroying itself are chillingly apt to today's fractured world. I wouldn't claim for a second that Lost Horizon is a masterpiece (The things I wouldn't miss about it are the uninspired choreography, and Bobby Van's "Question Me An Answer" number, which could easily have been cut), but if you haven't even seen Lost Horizon, or haven't seen it for some time, try watching without that "Oh boy, let's have a laugh at this pile of junk" attitude, and you will be surprised at how enjoyable it actually is.


Really, This movie should be released to DVD. I just got a bootleg copy of what I think was a studio film and I was utterly pleased!!! It was on my list of films to own simply because of the cast. Three of my PEOPLE, Michael York, Olivia Hussey. Both having been in Romeo & Juliet, and also John Gielghud. sorry about the bad spelling, were in there so on that alone I thought that for the small amount I was spending it would be fine. Boy was I right. I'm not going to give any of this one away, you may already know the story anyway, but I'll just say if you can get yourself a copy in ANY format...Do it!@ you won't be sorry. JPC


I saw this movie when it first came out in 1973 and loved it. Since then I've searched for a video but never found it until now, 33 years later, when I ordered it from Moviehunter. Sorry to say it doesn't hold up. This glamourized version just can't rise up to the 1937 production level. I love Burt Bacharach's musical score, that is if listend to by itself, and I even bought a CD of it, but for my taste it doesn't lend itself well to this mysterious and compelling story. Just doesn't fit. Michael York is lost here. Sally Kellerman tosses off a fine performance but Olivia Hussy is just ridiculous and not worth lugging through the Himalayas. The best performance is Charles Boyer as the head Lama.


I really loved this movie and have spent several years trying to get it. It is just not available and it has not been on TV for many many years. I enjoyed it and the songs because it had something different to say and made you think how every person looks at something from different prespectives. Also we often don't appreciate something we have till it is no longer there.

My 12 year old daughter just discoverd the music and is entranced with some of the songs. Someday I hope to get a copy of the film so she can have an opportunity to view it. (Oh would I love to see it again too!)


This version of "The Lost Horizon" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!


I did not know what to expect when I decided to watch this documentary. I knew it was about an ex-Viet Nam POW in Laos who escaped, but I didn't know much else. In reality, I wasn't expecting too much. Oh what a surprise! The story of this man's life is very interesting in itself, but what sets this film apart from other biography-type docs is that Dieter himself tells most of the story himself. Dieter is very comfortable in front of the camera. His personality really shines. He tells his story about his life growing up in Germany during WWII and the hardships. We are there with him in that same small town as he describes his family, inspirations, and struggles. We follow him to America and his path to fulfilling his dream to be a pilot. Then later Dieter describes his story of capture, escape, and survival in the Laotian jungle. We are again with him in that very jungle as he describes and re-enacts his imprisonment and path to freedom with great detail. We see the same primitive huts, villagers, and forms of detainment he dealt with that really hasn't changed for 30 years. We see the thick jungle, mountain terrain, and rivers Dieter faced during his escape. It helps us to understand his emotions, pain, and plight. I enjoyed the man, the story, and the style. Job well done!


Little Dieter Needs To Fly is another in the remarkable body of Werner Herzog's filmic work that is without peer. Having recently rewatched it on DVD, nearly a decade after its initial US release in 1997, it has lost none of its power, and one can see its influence on documentaries as diverse as Herzog's own recent Grizzly Man and Errol Morris's Academy Award winning The Fog Of War. Like the former, it details, in its far too brief 74 minutes, the life of an interesting American. Like the latter it gives a peek at a side of war that few see. Yes, we see the violence and the heroism, but as The Fog Of War brought us into the mind of one of last century's foremost warmongers, this film allows us a peek at the life of a grunt who is captured by the enemy, tortured, and ultimately triumphs. Except, in no way, shape, nor form, is the film as simplistic nor upbeat as my brief description of it. Nor is Little Dieter Needs To Fly's titular subject, Dieter Dengler, and immigrant German who survived the depredations of the Nazis (we find out, as example, that in his hometown, Wildburg, in the Black Forest, his grandfather was the only man not to vote for Hitler, and suffered brutally for that stand) post-World War Two Germany, and his own imprisonment at the hands of the Vietcong, when his Air Force jet was shot down over Laos on February 1st, 1966. While the title of the film, and the idea of Dengler's passion for becoming a pilot, stirred by the impression Allied fighter planes made on him when they razed his town, as a child, make one believe that Dengler is the central subject of the film, this is not true. The subject is Dengler's survival, or, more precisely, his human will, all human will. The details of Dengler's romantic life are too Hollywood and staid an aspect to interest Herzog. Nor is the fact that he won a Purple Heart, Medal of Honor, the D.F.C., and the Navy Cross. That thing which pushed Dengler to survive so much, and remain such a relatively upbeat man (although there are glimpses of darker sides), is what is at the center of this film, and all of Herzog's canon. Dieter Dengler's 'distant barbaric dream' of his past is fully ripened Herzog Country, and the use of a Madagascan chant, Oay Lahy E, during many jungle scenes, among other excellent touches in the score, show Herzog is, perhaps along with only Martin Scorsese, the best manipulator of image and music in film. Long may he merge!


I think it definitely is. The writing is of such a quality that beginner students of the English language should model their conversations after its dialogue. For example, the exchange between Paul Kersey(Bronson) and Ms. Kathryn Davis(Deborah Raffin) (more about this character later) is extremely clear and to the point: Ms. Davis says, "I hope you like chicken. It's the only thing I know how to make," to which Kersey deftly responds, "Chicken's good. I like chicken." If that's not English Grammar 101, I don't know what is.

Another thing about this Ms. Davis character: Kersey sleeps with her on the second date after she practically throws herself at him and tells him she wants to see him "one last time"(this being only the fourth time they've ever met) before she moves to her sister's house in Binghamton,NY to get away from the creeps; then he really doesn't even bat an eye while her corpse is burning in the street only minutes later. Kersey never even says her first name through the entirety of the film. Not once. Never a "Get over here, Katy," or a "That's a nice dress you wearing, Kathryn" or a "Be careful, Katie, or the creeps'll get ya!"

And while this 'love' is developing between the two, Fraker(Gavan O'Herlihy) keeps his ever-watchful eyes on them. It's almost as if Kersey is using her as bait to get to Fraker, much as he uses the camera or the car. Sure enough, when Fraker bites, Kersey bites back hard...in the most incredible sequence of events ever caught on film! The final fifteen or so minutes are possibly rivaled only by the final thirty minutes of Delta Force in their brilliance. And that's giving Delta Force a lot of credit. In what other film can you see Ed Lauter take out Alex Winter in order to get Charles Bronson's back, a troubled gang leader seemingly calling a hotline to summon neo-nazi bikers to come to his aid, and nimble Broadway dancers wearing mesh halter-tops posing as street punks, all laid down to a soundtrack written by none other than Jimmy Page. If that's not the highest of high comedy, then nothing is funny.

Truthfully speaking, there are a thousand ways to state the unintentional comedy of Death Wish 3, but the only way to truly understand it is to watch it and judge for yourself.


Oh my word!! I have never seen a film so lacking in any kind of moral judgement or consideration for anything other than the death of the scum! Michael Winner here makes a valid observation of human desires in displaying a gung-ho troth world of deep and damaged execution. Not only does he spoon feed us with utter hell on earth seen through the face of the moustached Bronson, but he also shows us the spoon he's feeding us with and says "look at what your watching now look at your self and ask the question: Are you enjoying this?" And even though you'll tell yourself NO IT CAN'T BE!!!! You'll know that deep down inside you'll know...it's a masterpiece


Charles Bronson is back in his most famous role. In my opinion, this is by far the best film of the series and my favorite movie ever. This movie doesn't take itself seriously, because the filmmakers knew that all the social commentary that was necessary was put across in the first film. Golan and Globus made this film for Bronson fans, not for the critics, and it works. DW3 has been unfairly criticized as "trash" and "a weary entry in a worn out series." These statements would be true if the film was made to be taken seriously or to spread a statement, but it wasn't. If you take it as what it is, DW3 is just a fun, action packed romp, with Charlie doing to street punks what we all wish we could do. The action is non stop, the atmosphere is great, and the movie is just out and out the best Bronson flick ever made. You can tell that the penny pinching Cannon group spent a lot of money on this one. It is believed that Bronson thought this film was too violent, and that was the reason why Winner didn't direct any of the following entries. I can understand his concern, but as is always the case of sequels, you have to push the envelope even further to pass a previous entry. In any case, this movie was no more violent than any other movie made during this time. What makes DW3 the best of the series and my favorite film ever (not the best, just my favorite), is the action, Charlie's presence, memorable villains, and it's ability to get the viewers to jump on the bandwagon. The first film may be the most technically well made, but this one is the most fun. For once, Charlie actually has some clever lines (although he doesn't say much)and a halfway interesting story, photography, action, and direction to back him up. Charlie has never been more intense or super cool than in this one. Yes, it's exploitive, maybe it does promote stereotypes, and maybe it is the same story as before, but Bronson's films always have and always will stand for defending the common man and giving his audience what they want to see. Many argue that the DW series manipulates its' audience, my reply is that the movies don't manipulate us, the fans are the ones in charge. We demand that Bronson blow away deserving scum, and in turn Winner and Co. deliver the goods. And for those of you who still want to put it down, remember a few things. DW3 was the #1 movie in America when it came out and was among the viewing favorites of millions of people on video and television because they realize that not all films have to be epics, they just have to be fun. **********/10 You can't get any better. John Batchelor


Most critics seem to have dismissed this film, like so many other Charles Bronson vehicles, as just another patchwork of mindless violence. And while there is a fair amount of mayhem, DEATH WISH 3 is not that awful of an effort, particularly for fans of the series and its star.

This time out, aging Charlie's Paul Kersey is let loose by a police chief desperate to clean up a rough part of New York City. The trigger-happy vigilante moves into the heart of gang territory, where he once again becomes a one-man army in an urban war of good versus evil. Bronson, at least the "older" version, is truly at his best.

I'm not saying DEATH WISH 3 is a classic. Indeed to the discriminating eye it has a plethora of imperfections. The characters are generally made of cardboard. The violence is over the top. A man well into his 60s outruns and outspooks dozens of young punks. But in the tradition of the original DEATH WISH and later films such as FALLING DOWN with Michael Douglas, it has a definite crowd-pleasing charm. Who doesn't want to see gangbangers get their due? There are also some great cheesy moments and one-liners so common in 1980s films. When a tenant of his apartment building sees Kersey setting up a booby trap, for instance, the vigilante lightheartedly says he's "thinning the herd." A line only Bronson can truly make work.

So you see, the key to enjoying DEATH WISH 3 is to accept it for what it is. It ain't Spielberg and it ain't art. So throw the popcorn in the microwave and have fun with it.


This movie is truly a classic 80s movie! A must have in any '80s' movie collection! Guns, Bad Guys, CREEPS, Gangs, CHARLES BRONSON and more CREEPS!!!!

In my opinion, this is the best Death Wish movie. Tons of non-stop action!

And keeping with the classic 80's "bad guy vs good guy" movie - this movie is about anything but the norm and all about guns and CREEPS! We see Bronson mowing down thugs and CREEPS with a 30 caliber Korean War heavy machine gun! A HEAVY MACHINE GUN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! When Charlie runs out of ammo for the Heavy Machine gun, he runs back to his crib and takes up arms with his long range high caliber pistol! This pistol can stop a freakin ELEPHANT and Charlie is putting holes the size of hub caps into bad guys with it! And if that is not enough, Charlie is also packing an anti tank grenade launcher, which by the way, is only good if he can get the CREEPS clumped together.

The acting in this movie is "ha ha" great and a lot of off the wall actors (mainly playing CREEPS) appear throughout the movie! The film is loaded with memorable one liners and scenes! Heck, my favorite scene/line is where the CREEP leader confronts Broson in Jail and calmly explains to him: "Tell you what I am going to do ...I'm gonna kill a little old lady ...just for you! ...catch it on the six o'clock news".

Is this film violent? Heck yes! But, you'll laugh and cringe all the way through!!!!


One of the most magnificent movies ever made. The acting of Charles Buchinski (later known as Bronson) is simply outstanding. This is the crown on the career of director Winner, who himself was often quoted saying this was his masterpiece. The plot has been copied many times, but it's never been topped. Wildey J. Moore, the gun manufacturer, many times claimed his brand's growth since the mid 80s can be fully credited to DW3, and rightly so. This is not just a movie, this is art that many generations will admire and appreciate. Although this movie has never been fully appreciated in the USA, it has found a huge following in Europe and Asia, where the movie is regularly shown at film schools and it is still a popular hit in student cinemas all across Europe. All in all, a true classic.


This classic has so many great one-liners and unintentionally hilarious scenes that I don't even know where to start. If you want advice on dating, its here. Just totally ignore the person you want, and then spout out classic lines like "Chicken's good...I like Chicken", and before you know it you will be having a one-nighter in a basement (it's a NICE basement) with a woman who is 35 years younger than you. Bronson does it all in this film. He buys a car for no good reason just so he can murder two gang members...paying with "CASH"......chunnng.... He buys an ice cream, simply because "this is America, isn't it", and ends up wasting someone named "the giggler - he laughs when he runs" just because he stole his camera. By the way, this "giggler" is so fast that Bronson's regular pistol can't even catch up to him, he needs to order a special one just to get this elusive creep. He gets cleaned up just so he can eat a REALLY smelly meal (stuffed cabbage) in a rat trap with a couple of old people who like to wear heavy clothing in 90 degree weather. He goes into the dentistry business. He always seems to find a crow bar when he needs one (and its the same one!). And last, but not least, he always seems to have a rocket launcher at his disposal just in case he needs to blow away Richie Cunningham's older brother Chuck who is now strung out and in dire need of a makeover. Anyway, this will all make sense once you have seen this classic...all I can say is enjoy! "I owed you that one DUDE"


The Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH 3 is very far removed from the Paul Kersey of the original film . If you remember the 1974 film then you will remember Kersey was a " Conchie " during the Korean war and that he was physically sick after he committed his first execution . Ten years later Kersey seems to have learned unarmed combat and how to handle anti tank weapons in his spare time . But I`ll overlook that gaffe because DW3 is the best of the sequels , lowlife scum bags get shot dead , burned alive , their teeth smashed , and thrown to their deaths by middle aged housewives armed with sweeping brushes . Yeah I know the gang members are multi ethnic and for that they deserve some credit but even if they`re not racist they`re still murdering scum who deserve all they get from Kersey and the innocent citizens . Who needs Mayor Rudy when you`ve got Paul Kersey , an anti tank rocket and a bunch of old age pensioners to reclaim the streets from the criminal creeps . Paul Kersey I salute you sir


LOL.

The mere fact that I start off my review with 'lol' says it all. I used to watch this movie all the time as a kid; and even then I sensed the silliness of it all. The low budget, horrible acting and lame script was ever apparent back then. I watched it again yesterday and just couldn't stop laughing. It's so bad it's actually good lol. Like another reviewer said, it doesn't take itself seriously. There's no way one could look at this movie and say that the makers did so. The soundtrack is so funny, I laugh every time I hear it. The 'climax' is just a laugh riot. It's an all out war zone in New York, full of explosions and total chaos...so ridiculous you can't help but chuckle at the sight of it.

Other hilarious moments:

- The scene with Kersey and the cop running side by side like 2 cowboys against the whole Wild West was so cheesy it was funny.

-It killed me how the bad guys could be shooting at Kersey and he could even drop down on one knee taking ever-so-careful (and slow) aim and not get hit LMAO. Of course, with him it was one shot-one kill with his elephant handgun LOL.

- Another hilarious scene was the end when he finally killed the leader of the gang....with a ROCKET LAUNCHER lol...destroying the whole side of the apartment building with it.

- It's apparent that Kersey is all but used to losing loved ones...when his new girlfriend is quickly disposed of after only a few dates. The acting is so bad that you can't blame anyone that could only think that Kersey is mad at the destruction of the car lol....he runs down, looks at the carnage and just walks away.

Again, so bad, it's good.

*** out of **** stars.


This movie was great. It had everything a true action fan could want. Plenty of people getting shot and/or maimed, minimal romance involving sex, a hero that can be identified with, violence at many intervals instead of pointless plot storing up just one scene at the end, and villains that are just asking for it. Bronson appears to be at his lowest level of tolerancy in this film and it shows. Ed Lauter makes a great cop and was seamlessly worked into Bronson's plot without stealing his spotlight. The movie doesn't involve a plot so boring or over-consuming that you watch this film once and never again. Rather, you want to see Kersey in action and the storyline just juices it up. This is great stuff.


I had never seen the original Death Wish in the book either Death Wish I (film). However, Death Wish 3 was the very interested film. The well-known vigilante, Paul Kersey tried to visit his friend, Charlie but he only visited him for a couple of minutes before he died, because of Charlie didn't pay the protection to the huge and infamous underground gang leaded by Manny Franker. After some altercation during his time in jail, Kersey learned that Franker, who he fought with in jail had his own agenda to make the New York City in the hellfire (and also his influence) by sending his henchmen to set the crime every time, everywhere and everyday. Due to the chance given by Insp. Richard Shriker who know his profile well and like him very much. Kersey decided to set the war with Franker and his gang.

I accepted that Death Wish III was one of the most straightedge and extreme violence action film which I had seen from the past. This movie used the very straightedge way to tell the story. No ponderous story-telling and less unnecessary scenes which was the one merit of the movie. On the next issue, Violence was used pervasively in the film. I believed that many of viewers could like the action scene of Death Wish III because it showed the crude, extreme and blast of action for every minutes of the movie, especially the climax scene of the movie and the death of Manny Franker which I thought that it was the maximum action scene.

For about the cast, I think everyone was good and get through their role. Charles Bronson made everybody believe that he still be great as Paul Kersey. He didn't look like the "big old cat", but the great vigilante. Gavan O'Herlihy also did his job very good. His main villain role in the movie made him look nasty and look like the big bad guy. However, the role of Kathryn Davis in this movie was pathetic. She didn't look like the main character. I thought that she was appeared only two or three scene before she was killed by Franker and his follower to make a heat on Paul Kersey. She could have more role to appear.

For my comment, the straightedge style and extreme violence made this movie great for extreme action film fans. Fast-paced with back and Forth style made this movie very interested to watch. Nevertheless, this movie had some silly scene and some plot hole. First, the scene when Insp.Shriker faced Paul Kersey for the first time. It was very corny because you attacked your favor guy before you want him to help, it similar to how you punch some guy before you try to borrow him some money. Haha! that's like a joke! Although, I liked the plot twist when Insp.Shriker was shown later that he helped Kersey because at first, Shriker looked like the villain very much due to his act to Kersey, but when the movie went to the climax, everything was cleared that he had no hidden agenda with Kersey.

In another case, the ending scene of the movie set back me. It stumble on everyone's feeling because it ended too easy. Franker's gang members looked unbelievable after they found that Franker was dead, before his girlfriend and other followers decided to escape. Finally, Insp.Shriker allowed Paul Kersey to fly out from his town before the police caught him. I thought that this style of ending scene could be found in many Cannon Film's movie, but I dislike it.

For the summary, I am OK with Death Wish 3 due to my explanation I typed first. The cast, and the action was very good and so extreme, even it had some scene I don't like. Straightedge and Extreme of Violence could be the best short description of this movie.


This is one of the best sequels around and a very good movie too even there were some mistakes but still I enjoyed it. This time, Charles is not just fighting one or two muggers but a whole army of them. Death Wish 3 has a lot great action scenes and I enjoyed it every single second of it. Director Michael Winner knows how to direct a good action movie like this and Jimmy Page providing the music, with producers Golan and Globus still doing there thing and Charles Bronson is still acting good for Paul Kersey. This movie also made it look like that Michael try to end the Death Wish series and I can't blame him and I love the Gun that Charles uses. Death Wish 3 is one of the great movies of 1985 and can't get any better than this.

I gives this 9/10


Death Wish 3 is exactly what a bad movie should be. Terrible acting! Implausible scenerios! Ridiculous death scenes! Creepy, evil-for-no-reason villains! The last 30 minutes of this movie just might be the best 30 minutes ever put on film, especially in the scene where the decent, hardworking citizens string chains across the street, knocking down the evil bikers and then shoot them, only to be joined by the neighborhood children (!!!) in celebration. And how can I forget the elderly woman with the broom? She's sweeping out the scum! And if that's not enough, let's not forget how quickly the punks give up after Fraker is killed. I'm laughing just thinking about it.

I also love the death scene of Kersey's girlfriend. He just *walks away* after seeing her get blown up. It's little things like this that make Death Wish 3 such a bad movie. And I'm not even mentioning the bizarre soundtrack.

I watched this movie because of Martin Balsam, who I seriously think is one of the finest character actors ever (and who's own "getting beaten up by the scum" scene is hilarious) and I walked away with a new favorite movie. Thank you, Death Wish 3 for making me laugh so hard.

Some other things I forgot to mention: 1. The weird sound effect after Kersey says "Cash!" when buying his used car. Ha! It's so evil sounding. 2. MANDY Fraker. Mandy! Did the writers run out of tough guy names? 3. The fact that the gangs apparently have a "lend and lease" thug exchange program: "I need some more guys." And that Mandy has a working phone line in an abandoned building. 4. At the end of the movie, after Kersey blows up Fraker: is it just me, or does it look like the street gang is about to break into choreography as they're giving up? Just watch how in sync they are after the female punk gives the "stop" signal.

I love this movie. Nothing cheers me up like Death Wish 3!


While I agree that this movie lacks any real substance and should not be taken seriously, its primarily directed to fans of the series who are looking for a quick fix. Bronson (Paul Kersey)once again takes to the streets (given a license to kill by the chief police no less) and moves into his friends apartment (who you guessed it) was killed by a street gang that has taken control of the neighborhood (which looks like Beruit). It's funny that people who associate with Bronson have a habit of getting killed. Bronson systematically kills them off one by one as the people in the neighborhood are used against him. There are some dynamics between Bronson and Fraker who leads the street gang, you can tell they both enjoy their work. At one point in the movie after they scuffle in the city jail, Fraker say's, "I'm going to kill a little old lady just for you, catch it on the 6:00 news." The "Giggler", a purse thief who laughs as he's committing his crimes is also enjoyable to watch. The movie was made in 1985 and most people probably could identify with the stereotypical urban gangs that are cast in the movie. It's enjoyable watching Bronson (Paul Kersey) rid the streets of these thugs. Watch for the appearance of the Wildey Magnum, a serious piece of hardware that Bronson wields. I also really liked the soundtrack to this movie.


This is an incredibly fun action/exploitation 80s rocker. Charles Bronson rules as Paul Kirsey. The villains are hilariously bad. The soundtrack, by Jimmy Page is laughably bad. Alex Winter (Bill of Bill & Ted) is great as one of the street punks who gets wasted by Bronson and crew. Crew? Oh, those are the downtrodden townsfolk who team up with Bronson to win back the streets. The whole movie is enjoyable, with the last half hour or so exploding into non-stop action and mayhem. 9/10


The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as "Nothings to good for out friends" and "Its collection time Charlie collection time." I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. "They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler" "They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it." The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me.


I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by "coldshitaction" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.


This movie is true action at its finest, It doesn't get any better then this. This is one of those movies that you can just kick back and watch some real good non stop shooting and killing plus there are some excellent lines to go along with all of this. My favorite is there is a one bad guy who is breaking into this old couples home and he is stealing a TV or something and he goes right up to them and yells "I will come in here anytime i like!!!" and right before he jumps out the window he yells "Anytime!!!" I mean this is just classic stuff all the way around so you got a choice, you can watch that crappy Will Smith try to go an action film or you can watch one of the Masters Charles Bronson!!!!


"Death Wish 3" brings back Charles Bronson as one time vigilante Paul Kersey,now retired.yeah,right.before long Kersey is back to his old ways.but this time,its not just a few muggers at a time,its a gang who have taken over a run down part of the city(New York again,by the way.)this time its war,so Kersy Hauls out the big guns(literally) for this.the body count int his one rivals anything Stallone or Schwarzenegger have come up with.this movie is actually somewhat fun to watch,particularly for a few one liners and of course bad guys die,or get severely injured in creative ways,which is always a good thing.the violence is not as personal in this one,its,obviously on a much grander scale,sort of like bombing your victims from afar,rather than one on one combat.this movie is lighter in tone than the 1st 2,making it easier to watch.there's not much import to this film,its more escapism than anything.its also cheesy at times and pseudo-inspirational,but hose scenes fall flat. they should have left the original "Death Wish" on its own without sequels,but since they didn't,they should have stopped here. 8 /10


This is probably the second best of the Death Wish movies. Death Wish 5 is the best one.

Death Wish 3 reminds me of "West Side Story" with a new twist. Not even the recent flick "Gangs of New York" can measure up with one New York neighborhood in Death Wish 3 which is plagued not by two rival gangs---but one big gang. A gang that is willing to do things like cutting a person to death with an ax if he trespasses on its set.

Deborah Raffin, who plays a public defender, plays gently in this action-packed movie that is filled with a lot of shoot-em-up violence. So, like Geri Nichols in Death Wish II, Death Wish III scores with its gentle, romantic moments as well as its violent moments. Only the James Bond love-interest scenes would do much better.

And, in addition to his .38, Kersee plays with this new gun called the Wildey .475 Magnum. It reminded me of the Dirty Harry movies when Callahan used his .44 Magnum in Magnum Force, Sudden Impact and Dirty Harry. The Wildey gun packs a big punch and when Kersey kills with it, he doesn't care if the gun has a big kick in it.

And that antitank missile that killed off the main gang leader? Well, that is something. Kersey would not use an antitank missile as his regular vigilante weapon....that is way too military for him.


After spotting the boat at the end of the previous episode ("Three Minutes"), the survivors are shocked to find out who the occupant is. With the use of the boat, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront "The Others". However, when Jack, Sawyer, Kate and Hurley follow Michael to "The Others", Jack is forced to reveal Michael's deadly secret whilst they are in the middle of nowhere.

Meanwhile, Locke decides that the time has come to find out the time has come to find out what will happen if "the button" is not pressed. However, Mr. Eko's resolve to continue pressing "the button" is surprisingly strong. So, when Locke concocts a plan to lock Eko out of the hatch with the help of an ally, Eko goes to surprisingly desperate lengths to stop Locke from making what he believes will be a big mistake.

This is a classic episode of Lost, full of secrets, suspense and very few answers to the many questions it poses to its viewers. However, some of the secrets this action-packed episode reveals will be truly shocking to the fans. There is also a trademark end-of-season cliffhanger, which achieves the feat of being both shocking and extremely confusing. One thing is guaranteed, it will keep you guessing right to the very end, and you will still be frustrated with more mind-boggling questions as you wait in agony for the Third Season to begin.


Jack, Sawyer and Sayid swim to the boat and find a completely wasted Desmond. His traumatic past experience before sailing to the island is disclosed through flashbacks. Sayid plots a plan with Jack to surprise "The Others" in case Michael is double-crossing the group. John Locke convinces Desmond to invade the hatch, which is protected by Mr. Eko, and not press the button of the computer to see what will happen.

This episode is one of the best of the Second Season. Unfortunately, we lovers of "Lost" can see the lack of respect the producers of this stunning series have with the fans. In the USA, the air date of this episode was 24 May 2006. Therefore, along this period, fans have to wait for the Third Season in a very suspenseful situation, with Jack and his group surrounded by "The Others" and finding the truth about Michael and the death of Ana Lucia and Libby; John locked inside the hatch without the intention of pushing the button and Mr. Eko in despair outside the hatch. I hope the fate of "Lost" be better than "Angel" and its very disappointing conclusion (or lack of conclusion) after five seasons. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


What's the point of this messages if not to discuss and share thoughts about the next season... Here is my forecast: 1. The hatch was indeed blown, but somehow everybody inside survived. Buts lets see about that. 2. The episode at the end with the tent is an observation team monitoring the tracking device installed on Desmonds boat by Penny. Now that the magnetic shield around the island was lifted, the signal was picked up by the observation station and they are going to send a rescue mission. 3. After the destruction of the hatch, the island is not isolated any more, and other ships/airplanes are going to arrive 4. The others are finally going to share their secret with us poor observers

Was it actually confirmed that there are going to be 4 seasons of LOST?

Cheers Mike


It was Libby talking to Desmond in the flashback, and if anyone is confused about her past (like how did she end up in the same hospital Hurley was in) then you should know that despited Libby dying in season 2, the character will be explored more in season 3 and we will get answers to questions surrounding her.

BTW, great episode. It had a really great cliffhanger and some interesting questions...like what happened to Eko and Lock and what about the four toe statue?

I cannot wait till season 3, Lost just rules!!! I hope all the unanswered questions will be answered. I loved how they explained why the plane actually crashed. Desmond did it when he did not manage to type in the numbers in time. 4 8 15 16 23 42


Lost has been one of the most mesmerizing and thrilling experience I've ever seen. Not only it's the mother of coincidence, but also every time that you think you can set up the whole puzzle in your head, the story takes a completely new direction.

Take this casualty for example, The US marine, whom gives Sayid the way to become a Torturer, Is Clancy Brown, playing a character named Joe Inman. In the last episode, he is playing Kelvin Inman, the Desmond partner in the Hatch. Destiny, uh? Yeah Right!

I guess that all of us will have to wait, to see what's next in the life of the wonder people in that strange island, in the middle of nowhere. Knowing that several of my favorites characters, Desmond, Sayid and Mr. Eko, have an unclear destiny

I believe that along with 24 and The Shield, this is one of the best TV shows ever, of course, keeping Twin Peaks at a special place.


First of all, I just have to say that I'm a huge LOST fan. Everyone who makes the show, I love 'em. It's got everything in it, really.

I'm glad that they have great people making it, for instance Jack Bender is the greatest director, well, maybe after J.J. Abrams. And of course, full credit to Damon Lindelof & Carlton Cuse. They're geniuses.

Anyway, the season 2 finale is definitely one of the best episodes of LOST ever!!! Live Together, Die Alone focuses on Desmond David Hume's story of getting to the island, and Henry Ian Cusick is so great playing that character! The makers of the show would have been very stupid if they would've let old'Des die on us.

So, in LOST, the plane crash survivors have been there for 65 days.. 65 days, man. Whileas Rousseau has been there for SIXTEEN years, and the Others have been there for God knows how long. Referring to Jeffrey Lieber, Lindelof & Abrams. Anyway, I hope we'll get the answers we need, in season 3. Can't wait! My vote is nine.


Woaww Is it only now that you notice the links between all the characters ?? Of course it's Libby ! And for the guy in the hatch with Desmond, any deja vu ??? Yeah !! He was the "same" guy that gave money to Sayid after he's killed or tortured the other soldier in the episode 14th of the 2nd season : One of Them. Well actually it's not completely the same guy, he's named Joe in the 14th episode and Kelvin in the last 2 episodes. Twins ?? :) Who knows ?? JJ Abrams ... mmmm I'm not even sure of that :) There are hundreds of links like this one between all the characters.

But that was just in response to the Libby comment.

I found those 2 episodes far more interesting than the whole season 2. During all that season I felt that there was lots of things I've missed and very few things I've learned. Especially at the very beginning, the 1st episode of the 2nd season is excellent, and then the 2nd one is a kind of flash back of the 1st one ... I found that disappointing even if I'm pretty sure that everything in Lost tend to have a meaning. That was just an example of how I was frustrated watching those episodes.

Let's go back to the last 2 episodes. I think we've learned more new things in those 2 episodes than in the entire season. But all we learn are little pieces for the next puzzle, like the involvement of Desmond's "relatives" (sorry if I spoil too much, believe me or not I'm trying not to) for example. So lots of things evoked in the past 2 seasons are still unclear or have been developed once then nothing. And still, there's new material as if all the holes in the picture were not enough. We all want to see the big picture of all of it of course, but I think we'll have to be very very patient. I hope there will be only 3 seasons. I'm not sure I will watch more than 3 seasons anyway. There was also lots of actions in the very last episode. And a good cliffhanger at the very end.

So basically, yes I loved that last episode ... and yes I want to see the third season.


This episode so far is the best of the series. The story was told perfectly. I especially liked how the writers made it a Desmond episode; it was his best performance to date and he definitely deserved the Emmy for his performance.

We had some of our questions answered in this episode, but since the show is called Lost we know there will be more questions brought up too. First the answered: Walt is reunited finally with his father Michael, second, Michael's betrayal is exposed to Jack, Sawyer, Kate, and Hurly and because of this betrayal Kate, Jack, and Sawyer are all taken captive by The Others. This was a great way to end the show.

On the other side of the island we see Locke going through a mental breakdown with the button. This leads to another answered question about how the plane really went down. However there are some unanswered questions: first, what happened to Locke, Eko, and Desmond when Desmond turned the failsafe key and what was the deal with the scientists in the Arctic searching for electromagnetic annamolies. Guess we'll find out next season, however great ending to the best show on TV.


The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.

A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job.


*Could contain spoilers, read only after seeing last episode season 2* Think about it. The guys on the north pole? Center of the earth? Looking for abnormal magnetic behavior? They also said something about: "did we miss it again?" So there was another abnormality? Of course that was when the plain crashed! I think this whole Island is a setup. Set up by her daddy. She found out about it and is looking for her Desmond. How else can she know what to look for.

So basically it's an Island in a magnetic shield. All of it is fake. All the signs are there. Fake beards, fake doors, fake medicine, fake observations stations, with fake air shafts that lead to nothing. It's a project indeed, and because of the final scene in the season 2 finale I know it has to do something with Desmond, his chick and her dad (and probably Libby, she's weird, maybe she actually has something to do with the plane crashing, OK now i'm drifting off).

Also in this episode, Henry Gail tells Michael to go to some coordinates, and he'll find rescue their. This is probably some sort of door in the magnetic shield. "once you're gone. there is no way back".

I think it's pretty obvious, despite of the numerous questions I still have and hope to get answers for in the next season. If you think back on what we've learned in season 1 and 2, I'm sure we'll get loads of answers in season 3.

Can't wait.

Can anyone agree on this theory? Hope to hear from you...


"Live Together, Die Alone" is divided into three main story lines, and each one of them alone would have been enough for a great episode. So when you put all of them together, you have a great ^ 3 episode. It was a daring move to give the flashbacks of a season finale to a character (Desmond) who had only appeared in 3 episodes up to that point, but it worked: his backstory is absolutely fascinating to watch, both informative about the past of the island & the Swan station itself and honestly moving. Desmond and Penny seem magically connected to each other, even when they are on opposite ends of the world, and both characters are beautifully acted (it's hard not to cry when Desmond reads Penny's letter). The action inside the hatch is edge-of-your-seat tense, as Locke is determined not to allow the button to get pushed again, convinced it was all just a psychological experiment, Desmond gradually realizes the consequences of this decision, and Eko is locked outside and tries desperately to get back in. The melting of the clock and Locke's "I was wrong" are unforgettable moments. The outside action has Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Hurley captured by the Others due to Michael's betrayal (after they make a puzzling discovery connected to the Pearl), and "Henry Gale"'s game-changing return as the Others' leader. Even the least important plot line, Sayid, Jin and Sun sailing to the beach where the Others are supposedly camping, contains one of the greatest mythological mysteries of the show, the giant statue that's almost entirely missing except for a foot with four toes. In short: emotion + history + mythology + adventure + suspense + the threat of annihilation + a ray of hope = a classic LOST episode. ***1/2 out of 4.


a very good episode, although not as devastating a finale as the end of season 1. The idea to make it a Desmond flashback worked very well, and Henry Ian Cusick was fantastic, perhaps putting in the best performance of this entire series, but my only complaint would be the Michael plot line felt very much like a subplot, and after three minutes the previous episode, i thought it would feature more. But the strength of Cusicks character and performance pulled it through. the plot developments, as always, left more questions then answers, like who are the others, something we still don't know, and where are they taking jack, Sawyer and Kate. What was the white light, what impact has it had? Are Locke, Eko and Desmond dead? as the hatch destructed around them. If they are it would be a major mistake, because these three are the most interesting characters and the series would suffer without them and Terry O'Quinn has been fantastic throughout both series as Locke. A fitting finale to a better series then the first.


Watching the last 2 episodes i remembered a TV add from my childhood. It showed the wild west, very dusty and dry, and there is a small saloon, a man enters the bar/saloon, he is thirsty as hell, lips cracked etc...., he has just walked through the Nevada Desert and hasn't drunk water for days. He croaks to the bartender "gimme a packet of potato chips" While he is eating it we can feel how thirstier he is getting, we hear a voice in the background saying.... "Keep building that thirst, build it till you cant hold it any more............. then blow it away with TEAM" The man drinks TEAM (a soft drink) It feels like a few dozen bags of potato chips the thirst is so intense that i cannot hold it any more, Season 2 has even more twists and turns then season 1. The ending answers a lot of questions but asks many many more questions hopefully we will know the answer in season 3, but i doubt it because i feel LOST has the momentum go a lot further then 3 seasons, if the people behind the camera keep up their good work.

I for one will keep watching.

From Pakistan with Love


Indeed, Cynthia Watros is in this movie as Elizabeth talking to Desmond. Though I'm just wondering how she ended up as a 'rehab patient'(?) where Hurley is also in there trying to reduce his weight (as seen from the previous episodes).

Anyway, this last episode is really suspended. The ending is not so understandable. I think the writer did expect the audience that there is a season 3 coming.

I just hope the next season will give light to more unclear/hanging events that were happened.

Just can't wait further for season 3.


The show start out with the boat. Desmond was i it. Then they went to try to save Walt. And Lock things that the button pushing is a big joke at the same time Desmond found out that hes the one that crashed the plane. Eko tries to open the door that Jhon locked on him, and Charlie helped him find the Bomb. While Sayid and Jack plan is that, Sasyid is to find the others first and see who and what the other are. And find if there armed and have any weapons.

Micheal takes Jack, Swayer, Kate, and Hugo in a trap. And they get caught.

After the show there were more questions then answers, but that what makes the show great. And can't wait until Season 3


For me this is a good series. I am kind of disappointed that Ana Lucia and Libby died but more upset that Micheal lied to everyone about who killed them. And if any one can answer this what was that guys name who was supposedly "Henry Gale" he was like the leader of the others (or was that Ms. Clue??) anyway if you know his name cool. Well trying to think of what can possibly happen next after they finally didn't press the button. Does that mess up the whole DARMA project thing and i personally thought it was cool how they had that key thing underground that Desmond used to shut off the magnet thing, yeah and what was the whole point of that? I am just glad they didn't press the button finally, but what happens to the people in the hatch? Like Mr. Echo, John, Charlie and well Desmond probably died but what about the others? I think they survived, I forget? well this is just my little thing on what i thought about this season finale!!!


NOBODY (1999) is a fantastic piece of Japanese noir. It's about three salarymen who get in way over their heads when their innocent, drunken cheapshots p*** off three OTHER guys one night in a bar. When these three mysterious strangers, who are up to much more deviant no-goodness than even the film allows us to know, beat the living daylights out of one of our "heroes", the trio decides to return the favour in kind - only they accidentally KILL one of the other guys! The remaining two baddies then begin the systematic destruction of everything these poor schmoes hold dear, including their fast-dwindling sanity. Phaedra Video's DVD sleeve features a critic quote calling the film "A paranoid street crime freakout!" or some such, and the term more than applies here. Brooding, tense, very violent and low-key (but still pretty slick), shot largely at night with many deliberately vague moments and character motivations that keep the audience guessing right along with the besieged protagonists (who, to some degree, deserve everything they get!). I give it a 10.


it's a good watch if u have time - deals with three friends who get into a needless bar fight, and get into serious trouble. they find themselves fighting some shadowy people, and can't deal with. very, very disturbing portrayal of japan, the arbitrariness of modern life... some intense scenes, but a bit of a potboiler

the spoiler was that the plot is not too clear based on English sub titles. obviously, i don't know Japanese.

the only other Japanese movies i've seen were kurosawa, who is a different and far loftier than this modern genre. so, can't really compare. otherwise, it compares better with most Hollywood "blockbusters" for story plot and buildup.

taptieg24


Nicely filmed, a little uneven, "Nobody" is a good evening's entertainment. The plot is simple enough--three yuppies get into a scrap with a group of strangers in a bar, and it turns out to be much more than they bargained for. The acting is decent, and there are a few unexpected twists. Watch for the completely unbelievable (like the 10 shot revolver, and 25 shot semi-automatic handgun).


A unique blend of musical, film-noir and comedy - with a few sex scenes thrown in for good measure. The only other film I can think of with a fairly similarly wild and madcap mixture of themes and clichés is the French movie Billy Ze Kick - but that has a more surreal and quirky approach.

Not that this film would not be surreal or quirky. The humour is at times quite subtle, at other times blatantly in your face - and often crossing the border to offensiveness. To give an example: in the post-coital chit-chat with a prostitute our hero Max Müller encourages her to reveal who was responsible for a recent murder, using the words "Schiess los!". Literally, this phrase means "Shoot!" in German, and that is exactly what a hidden assassin does in response. In other words - this beautiful lady was sacrificed for a pun.

Müllers Büro is also one of the very rare examples of films with funny sex scenes. Larry's romance is accompanied by the song "Ich will mehr" (I want more) - while the song perfectly underpins the action, the meaning of its words changes a couple of times, hinting at the end at Larry's inability of providing any further service. The film's main love scene between Max Müller and Bettina Kant lacks such subtlety - this is jaw-dropping stuff, especially when Bettina's singing slowly transgresses into moaning, of course all in the rhythm of the music.

Unmissable, unless you are one of the easily offended.


If you haven't seen this film, do it. Its a genremix as i've never seen another. Some very surreal scenes, some hilarious funny stuff, a film noir felling, musical numbers with a swing, sex scenes (The 2nd best played orgasm on Film, bested only by Sally), a pitch of Orson Welles blended together into a work of art. As an work of art it hasn't to be logical at the end, at least not logical for everybody ;-). I owned an tv copy on VHS but loaned it to an ex-girlfriend and now i can't get it back. But the film should be out on DVD in Austria on 10.06.03 and be sure, I will buy it.


"Müllers Büro" is a movie which many will watch and enjoy until the end, while others will stop watching it within five minutes. It is a parody of detective movies with all the twists and turns; the action takes place only at night in the dark corners of a city which resembles Batman's Gotham City (look carefully at the streets, buildings, the police car chasing the criminals, etc.). It is also a parody of musicals with its really funny characters such as Müller's secretary and Vitasek's (the actor playing Müller's assistant) lover who do their best to sing, albeit not very successfully.

The spaces occupied by the characters have their own presence in the film such as the decadent Blue Box (there is a real club with this name in Vienna) where one can see a sailor hitting on a girl in the background, Müller's apartment with the black paint smeared on the walls and the dirty kitchen, Müller's bureau with the sweet picture of his assistant, etc.

The humorous moments in the movie are many and include "flat in the face" type of humor such as Müller farting in his assistant's face, the prostitute charging Müller extra for orgasm, the ridiculous outfits of the female thugs of Montana, etc.

A legendary film from the 80's especially for those interested in Austrian or German-speaking cinema.


Do you liked "Dead Man don't wear Plaid"? What about "Top Secret" and "A Chorus Line"? Well Müllers Büro is a fantastic Melange of all three of them, as unlikely it may seem. Very Funny "tongue in Cheek" Movie Noir hommage with stunning Songs and great Dancing. You have to have a little odd humor for this movie, but it is very well worth seeing it. I've voted it a nine, If the end would be a bit more logic it would have gotten a ten. Thats how Good that Movie is.


This Columbo is unique in that we don't really know the exact outcome until the very end. Our favorite dark horse detective suspects a pair of identical twin brothers of killing their rich uncle; each points the finger at his brother. In a mystery series in which the crime is shown at the beginning of the drama, this twist could reasonably be used only once or twice, and this was Columbo's time. Other than that wrinkle, this episode fits in well with others of the series. It has a lighter tone than some, with a very funny performance by Jeanette Nolan as the fastidious and loyal housekeeper who takes an instant dislike to Columbo.


Double Shock is one of the many good Columbo episodes which reaches the level of a good movie.

It has all the elements we like in the Columbo episodes. We get the laugh when Columbo makes something clumsy, and it happens more than once in Double Shock. I can almost guarantee that you will laugh several times if you decide to watch this episode.

We also get the riddle as usual with an almost perfect murder, but something about the murder troubles Columbo. The end is the usual, we get the story about how Columbo solved the mystery.

This is another good Columbo-episode, and I will rate it 7/10. It is close to 8/10.

"Just one more question" - The acting? Peter Falk is very good as usual.


This is my favourite Columbo. Martin Landau (excellent!) plays twins, one of whom may have committed a murder. This Columbo is unusual because the usual murder scene at the beginning doesn't give you any clue to which one did it! Peter Falk is on form as usual in this episode written by Steven Bochco (who also wrote 'Murder by the Book', my second favourite episode). The supporting cast are great especially Julie Newmar (very under-rated) and Jeanette Nolan as the house keeper that Columbo just keeps on upsetting. The surname of Martin Landau's characters in this is 'Paris'. That was the surname of Leonard Nimoy's character in Mission Impossible. Coincidence? Or a Steven Bochco joke?


What a cast of actors and actresses in this Columbo episode, beside Peter Falk, you have Julie Newmar, Jeannette Nolan, Martin Landau as twins. Anyway, the old uncle dies mysteriously and it looks like a heart attack on the bicycle discovered by his fiancé, Julie Newmar, who plays the role so deliciously. Jeannette Nolan plays the other woman of the house, the housekeeper who prides herself on her talents and chides Columbo's sloppy and often typical behavior with his cigar. Martin Landau plays identical twins in this one. Each who accuse the other of murdering their uncle for money. Well, you'll just have to watch and see the outcome but I can assure you that it's always worth watching this one for the cast and the crew.


This is a well directed Columbo episode, with also some good character but the story just doesn't really know to interest enough and doesn't appear as well layered and constructed as was often the case with a Columbo movie. This also goes for the killer's plot to kill his uncle. It's quite simple and doesn't seem as well thought out. Perhaps this movie didn't really took itself serious enough, since the atmosphere of the movie is mostly light. At least when compared to different Columbo movies.

For instance the movie features quite a large amount of comical relief, mostly coming from the Columbo character himself. It makes the movie an enjoyable one to watch but it also gives you the feeling they sort of overdid it times, also mostly since it doesn't correspond with most other Columbo movies.

The characters are good and it helps that it features Martin Landau in a double role. It's always funny to see how much different he still looked as a young man, while for instance a person such as Peter Falk hardly changed any over the years, he only got grayer. The movie also features Julie Newmar among others, who is best know for playing Catwoman in the '60's "Batman" life action series. It's funny how she still moves like Catwoman in this movie. Intentional or is this just her way of acting?

It's an enjoyable and good to watch Columbo movie but it also gives you the feeling that it all could had been a lot better with a better thought out script.

7/10


This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.

The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.

Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade.


This is a stunning movie. Raw and sublimely moving. It felt like a very gripping, intelligent stage play (but without the overly theatrical feeling one actually gets from watching people on a stage) which plays on everyone's terror of a white lie escalating to monstrous consequences. All of the main players are mesmerising. Tom Wilkinson broke my heart at the end... and everyone else's judging by the amount of fumbling for hankies and hands going up to faces among males and females alike. Julian Fellowes has triumphed again. He's a national treasure. Gosford Park, Vanity Fair, Mary Poppins... and now this. Can he do no wrong?! GO AND SEE IT! This is a film for real grown-ups.


Nigel Balchin's maze-like novel 'A Way Through the Wood' has been adapted by Julian Fellowes who also directs this 'terribly British' drawing room suspense piece. It is a film whose effect relies on the cast portraying the varyingly benign/malignant characters and it is here that Fellowes' directorial choices are superb. The story has a linear line that is easy to follow, but the beauty of the film is the metamorphosis of each player as a single incident ignites a minefield of disasters.

James Manning (Tom Wilkinson) is a successful business obsessed solicitor in London, married to Anne (Emily Watson) who needs more in her life: the couple being childless live in the country in a beautiful estate, assisted by their long term 'cleaner' Maggie (Linda Bassett). They attend social outings and meet, among others, William Bule (Rupert Everett), the passively lazy wealthy neighbor. Anne decides they should entertain their neighbors and against gruff James' protestation Anne proceeds with planning: James arranges to 'not attend due to business'. On the night of the party there is a hit and run accident in which Maggie's husband is accidentally killed by someone in a Range Rover (she observed). When James returns home he sees a scratch on William's Range Rover and suspects William to be the perpetrator. Anne discourages James from going to the police with the information -'what possible good can it do but ruin Bill's life as a socialite and father and son of an important scion?'. From this first 'lie' the virus spreads: James confronts Bill who talks James out of going to the police, Anne confesses it was she who was driving Bill's Rover and is the one responsible, James convinces Anne to keep it quiet because it would ruin his reputation, Anne confesses she is having an affair with Bill, and the three of them concur that they will stick together on their big lie for the sake of the greater good. Anne eventually succumbs to the guilt of not telling her beloved Maggie that she is the one responsible and Maggie, herself guilty of a previous theft whose life was saved by Anne's mercy to hire her anyway, is the agent who draws the story to its surprising conclusion. Lies begat lies that begat lies, et cetera.

The major impact of this intrigue is the manner in which the isolated tragedy impacts each of the characters involved. Each changes in a dramatic way. Tome Wilkinson gives the finest performance of a career filled with brilliant performances: he is able to say more with his posture and facial expressions than about any actor before the audience today. Likewise the gifted Emily Watson adds yet another fine role to her repertoire as does the surprisingly smarmy Rupert Everett who, despite being yet another wealthy British 'gentleman', gives us a man both arid of spirit and yet ultimately needy. And the always-fine Linda Bassett takes a small role and finesses it making her character quietly central to the chaotic web of lies.

The cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts and the musical score by Stanislas Syrewicz add immeasurably to the multiple atmospheres the story encounters. This is ensemble playing at its finest, which always means that the director (Julian Fellowes) has a fine grasp on the piece. The interplay of these fine people makes the dodgy story work very well indeed. Grady Harp


SEPARATE LIES is such an elegant, intelligent and thought provoking film and I could have watched Tom Wilkinson forever on the screen. The locations in the English countryside, the marvelous London locations, the interiors, smart wardrobes and of course, the writing and dialog made SEPARATE LIES a thrilling adventure.

With that said, and perhaps this is just an American viewpoint, as the British are so much more sophisticated in handling sexual escapades, I found it hard to watch Tom Wilkinson just stand by, as his wife goes merrily on her way in a sexual journey that really brings her very little joy, creates much despair for her husband, with the cad that is Rupert Everett. Yes, I saw the failings of Wilkinson's character-his aim for perfection, the desire for everything in its place-but in Emily Watson, she should have looked deeper into his true character and solid goodness, to realize what she has thrown away.

Tom Wilkinson makes SEPARATE LIES into a powerful film by watching him experience all the pain, embarrassment, and despair on the screen as his wife goes off with another man. And he himself makes the journey in SEPARATE LIES by understanding his faults, embracing his wife, despite all that has gone on, and leading her back to London. Bravo, Tom!


I wish there were more films about middle aged people. The intellectual journey and the twists and turns of life's moral highway make interesting viewing. There seems to be a different standard of judgement on women who have extra marital affairs than on men. Amy Watson's hurtful and humiliating behaviour towards her husband seems to pass without comment. Reverse the roles and one could expect a torrent of condemnation towards the man. If she found her husband boring and judgmental she could could have told him so, left and waited for a no doubt large financial settlement upon divorce. The country and London scenes are wonderfully authentic and rich while the autumnal weather adds to the melancholy background superbly. The ending is perfect, so in tune with real adult life.


Well, what's wrong with the title "Separate Lies" (accused elsewhere of not being "exciting"). It's cunning, subtle and a bit poetic. (Of course there's a Phil Collins song and a James Belushi film called "Separate Lives", which are alluded to here.)

But the real point is the ethical dilemmas of telling lies at different levels that the film probes. OK, it's not an "in-your-face" hilarious title, but then it's not an in-your-face hilarious film. Please give British films like this a chance. They do try to make people think about important things, as here: how far do you go to protect your life (even if it is a bit rotten) against unexpected disaster. Maybe you tell lies. Maybe you ignore your loved ones' lies. That can wear a lot of people out.

American movies on this theme are abundant, but they usually go much further by involving the use of firearms, which are not a part of everyday life here in Europe.

Maybe we're not so "exciting" over here, but we don't expect slogan-like film titles for films that are not aimed at a massive public.


A well written screenplay. A moving story showing the middle class English at it's best. Some great acting by Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson. Tom Wilkinson is one of Britain's best actors. He knows how to be subtle and honest. Emily Watson is an actress I was not familiar with, but to her credit she does a great job of playing the ****** wife. The director, Julian Fellowes did not succumb to the typical Hollywood gimmicks to give the film some meaty storyline. It has not over dramatized it's portrayal of the English middle class. The films pace does not falter although it is not a faced paced film. A good twist in the plot, that is not predictable A lovely English country village setting. I enjoyed this film very much The locations were also very well selected. If you enjoy films about relationships this is one to watch. Better to have some tissues ready!


Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of "A Way Through the Wood", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of "Gosford Park", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.

James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.

The third person in this ménage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.

The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same.


Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing.


An old man is riding his bike down a village road when a car comes out of nowhere, strikes him down dead, and keeps driving. The rest of the film is spent discovering who hit him, why he was hit, and what consequences this murder will have on the rest of the village. Separate Lies is a very British movie indeed. I'm not saying that hit-and-run car accidents are a particularly British phenomenon, but the way everyone reacts to this tragedy is very British. Tom Wilkinson plays James Manning, a hard-working, respectable citizen with a "stiff-upper-lip" attitude towards tragedy. His wife Anne (Emily Watson), who is twenty years younger than her husband, is more emotional, more impulsive, and more prone to drama.

The man who really spices up life in this sleepy village is playboy millionaire William Bule, played by a deliciously devilish Rupert Everett (most American audiences will eternally remember him as Julia Roberts' gay friend who completely stole every scene in My Best Friend's Wedding). In Separate Lies, Everett is cruel, cold, and selfish, but he's an absolute blast on screen. No, it's not that exciting of a movie title (Separate Lies  how did they end up with that lame and forgettable title? Did they just not have a marketing team? Did they just now care about getting people to see this film?), but beyond the title is a heartbreaking drama about the power of forgiveness.


Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. "Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life." How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred.

The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong.

The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film "Where the Truth Lies" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship.

You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in "Separate Lies," yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss.

Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002.

Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney.

Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in "My Best Friend's Wedding" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in "An Ideal Husband" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV.

Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in "East is East" 1999.


Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.

SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:

The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was "It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance." For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her

Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me.

Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.

She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.

Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.

At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.

It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.

The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters.


Can the intensity of a husband's love for his wife lead him to cover up a crime,despite betrayal on many levels? Tom Wilkinson is no brutal Othello, in the setting of modern day England. So, gradually a web of deceit begins to be woven. And, we witness cycles of jealousy and drunkenness and guilt and fornication. And so the web of "separate lies" begins to fail and then hold together again. And life (and death) goes on, despite the bright flame of the husband's love and the deep despair and guilt woven into so many lives. How many webs of deceit are to be displayed in this growing tapestry? The impulse is to prop up sterling reputations and careers and relationships in this most civilized corner of the world. Wilkinson gives an emotional performance, full of grace and discretion and decorum, and yet humanity, of those who have much to hide. Those who desire clarity and openness on the way to justice will be disappointed with the wickedness of so much deception. And yet, who among us, has not something similar to hide about his loved ones? Nevertheless, the viewer may wonder if this web is fated to crumble some day.


If we could have "Separate Tables," why not "Separate Lies."

This becomes somewhat involved. A housekeeper's husband is killed when he is hit by a car while on a bicycle. The culprit turns out to be the woman she cleans for. The latter was having an affair with a friend and was driving the car with the lover in it when the accident occurred. To complicate matters further, the housekeeper once worked for the guy's parents and he had her jailed for stealing. Therefore, people will hesitate to believe that it was his car that caused the accident. Sounds like she wants revenge.

This all becomes convoluted. When our housekeeper discovers that her boss was driving the car, she recants her testimony much to the dismay of the officer who is working on the case.

As if this isn't enough, several months later, our lover (Rupert Everett) becomes terminally ill and our lady (Emily Watson) leaves her husband (Tom Wilkinson) to care for him.

The acting is quite good here despite the never-ending "Peyton Place" like theme. Tom Wilkinson, is a solicitor, who tries to protect his wife.

The film is a good one, but we could have done without the terminal illness. O well, the marriage ended anyway.


Now this is the sort of film we used to get weekly . Now-a-days it is rare to see a drama that depends on the cast talking to each other.

There are no explosions, car chases or any chases,there are implied sexual situations.This is not film for the younger crowd, It is for those that appreciate people talking to each other,They do argue a lot as we have married couple having mid life problems.

Emily Watson & Tom Wilkinson are seemingly a very happy middle aged loving man & wife. Now living in this same small London suburb, handsome, Rupert Everett returns home to visit his wealthy father.

He of course meets Emily Watson, It would be easy for anyone to be smitten by Emily. I say no more, except that as the credits begin there is a fatal accident,the rest of the film is about the repercussions of this accident & all the lies the various characters tell..

The acting by this trio & the others is excellent.

Julien Fellows wrote the screenplay based on a novel by Nigel Balchin. He also directed, this was his first directorial attempt & he did very well. The entire production is first rate.

The film had a few month theatrical run in late 2005, is under 80 theatres. This to me is a shame, Stupid comedies open on at least 2000 screens but real good drams as this & many others open in only a few.

By the way there are some very funny lines regarding certain situations.

Ratings: ***1/2 (out of 4) 95 points (out of 100) IMDb 9 (out of 10)


Years ago when I first read John Irving's The World According to Garp, I was astounded that most of the younger adults with whom I had contact didn't like the book when I loved it. I began to understand that it was an age and experience thing. I experienced somewhat of a déjà vu when reading some of the comments on this site that were clearly written by younger viewers. Fully enjoying Separate Lies is surely an age and experience thing.

In this film the viewer sees a seemingly happy upper middle class couple - he a successful lawyer - she the perfect wife of a successful lawyer. They have a townhouse in London and a home in the country. All's well until there enters the "villain" in the guise of the son of the richest man in the village. This guy appears to be a cad from the word, "Go." He is disdainful of everyone and everything including his own children. In the traditional form of nice guys finishing last, the lawyer's wife engages in an affair with the bounder. You see the lawyer really is a nice guy but with the marriage killing trait of an organized perfectionist. Even though he truly loves her, he is boring his wife to death. The bad boy is far more exciting.

All of this is entangled with the hit-and-run death of a man in the village in which all the facts point to the cad being the driver of the vehicle.

It's easy to determine that this movie doesn't build to a happy ending, however, it does lead to a very satisfying ending in that the man and his wife learn and grow from their experiences and probably will be able to conduct their personal lives in a more successful manner.

Three excellent actors play the main characters in this film, and it is there performances that make the whole thing a pleasure to watch. Tom Wilkinson is perfect as the husband. His portrayal shows us a kind man who has so much control over his emotions that he has lost touch with the world. Emily Watson shows us a woman who has become so trapped in the role of perfect wife that she has almost lost her knowledge of passion. That passion is reborn by the character deftly played by Rupert Everett.

If you have reached that point in life in which you understand that everyone has feet of clay and that everyone - even with the gifts of intelligence and opportunities - makes many many wrong decisions, then you will probably enjoy watching these excellent actors creating the lives of three such people. This is a beautifully acted and directed adult film about realistic adults.


Another great Tom Wilkinson performance punctuates "Separate Lies," a 2005 film also starring Emily Watson, Linda Bassett and Rupert Everett. Directed by Julian Fellowes, it's the story of a married couple, James and Ann Manning where the husband (Wilkinson) believes he and his wife (Watson) are happy together. An accident near their house on the night they have a party brings the police around. It is a hit and run that killed their maid Maggie's Bassett) husband. James becomes suspicious of a neighbor, Bill Bule (Everett) when he sees some damage on his car. He confronts Bule, who admits he did it and promises to go to the police the next day. When James arrives home, Ann is angry that he is making such a big deal out of it and states that she was driving the car. Of course, James then isn't so eager to rush to the police. She suggests that they call Bule and tell him their decision. "Oh, f___ Bule," James says. "Well, that's just it," Ann says. "I am f___ing Bule." James' devastation is just the beginning in this well-crafted drama. Without giving the plot away, this is a good example of how gender switching changes a story. Example of what I mean: Susan Smith drives her car into a lake and her children drown. She gets life in prison. What if the father had done it? The chair. You'd be surprised how often the outcome would be different. The same is true here - if it had been James having the affair and doing the subsequent activities, viewers might feel differently about the story. If Ann were in James' place, it would be shattering. As it is, it's tremendously sad.

Tom Wilkinson is heartbreaking as a man blindsided by the woman he adores, and Emily Watson does a beautiful job as Ann, who, once she frees herself from her lies - her involvement in the accident and the happy marriage - knows what she has to do. Rupert Everett as Bule is very effective - indolent, uppity and ultimately in need. Everyone here is very civilized in their dealings with one another, and no one is all good or all bad.

There are separate lies - James that his marriage is happy, Ann's as listed above - and there is one uniting lie - the accident, about which all parties keep quiet. It's enough for Ann that Maggie knows. In the end, all must deal with the separate lies that the single lie uncovered.

Brilliant film.


There are so many more complexities to the plot of this wonderful thought provoking movie than just infidelity and cover-up of responsibility for the accident. I was struck by the initial seeming goodness of husband Wilkinson who wanted the driver, when he thought it was Everett, disclosed to the police, and the change of heart (and morals) when he learned it was his wife. As well, was he indeed good, and/or was he attempting to redeem self by allowing her to go with Rupert. Then, things switchedand SHE decided the right ting to do was admit that she hit him. Most importantly the theme of redemption (for the accident - for the infidelity - in her own odd, flawed way)is strongest in Watson's sickbed care for Everett. I believe that is why she undertook that effort.

This seems to be a common theme in modern British novels: Brideshead Revisited, The End of the Affair come to mind. Love it.


How on earth can people give this movie a low rating. Unbelievable. The performances of Wilkinson and Watson are so full of merit that I can only imagine that these detractors were weaned on blockbusters and porn. (If this sounds bad-tempered, it's because I just wiped my original 400-worder just now) I was so impressed by Tom Wilkinson. All hail the guy. This is a performance of considerable subtlety and massive skill. His development as an actor from The Full Monty to this masterpiece of a performance is amazing; one of the best things to happen in film-making in the last ten years.

Emily Watson is somewhat less commanding, due to that glint in her eye that says 'see me? this cheeky woman, here? You can't guess what I'm going to do next because I don't know either!' It seems to be something she can't help showing us in every role, but still, she's an actor of terrific ability and presence. She is very sexy here, as she needs to be, and fair play to her for this: this is a screen quality that normally, for me, she doesn't have in previous films.

As you might expect, Rupert Everett, required to play an upper-class late-30 something who could give tutorials at Phd level in How Not To Give a Toss About Heading to Hell On Account of Total Selfishness, delivers. He is so thin here, throughout the movie, however, I'm worried for him. Linda Bassett's housekeeper is also excellent: a smallish role but with a major plot twist to deliver, she makes you ponder how much talent we have in Britain in terms of character acting. I want to see more of her.

The narrative arc is fine; it's an interesting enough plot, given that no-one in film-making seems to be trying to convince Joe Public that there's nothing new under the sun, though it does stray towards 40s melodrama in the last 'reel.' But never mind that - this is a terrific 80 minutes worth of anyone who has half-a-brain's money. Congrats to Julian Fellowes on his first directorial effort: o how we need more films of substance like this. He shows a lot of skill in terms of adapting the original novel, telling a story with much effectiveness and subtlety. And congrats too on conjuring an immense display of the film actor's art from Mr Tom Wilkinson. What a geezer.

T.


I gave it a seven only because the acting is good. And of course by that I mean Wilkinson. The other two principals were "decent". But the characters themselves...what on earth was so bad about the character Wilkinson played (James Manning)? I didn't see him behaving like the martinet Emily Watson accused him of being. Bill Bule, on the other hand, was an insufferable jerk who I was praying would meet an extremely brutal and prolonged demise. Who was I kidding? Tom Wilkinson isn't Paul Bettany after all. So what on EARTH did Emily Watson's (Anne) character SEE in him???? She herself admitted he was pretty much a piece of offal in his treatment of her. Why would she even want to be in the same TOWN as him, to say nothing of the same "room".

I noticed some other reviews, one person said she "cried" at the end, to witness James' tragedy. ??? WHAT tragedy? What, you mean losing an imbecile who finds someone like Bill Bule AMUSING???!!! Give us a break.