I also attended the RI International Horror Film Festival and I can easily see why this film won best of show.

SEA OF DUST is a wild romp of Horror, Comedy and beautiful scenery. A back in time tale of strange goings on. An increasingly wide spread illness with an overwhelmingly irritating side effect of people's heads exploding, brings a young Professor's apprentice; Stefan, to investigate. Along his travels, he decides to briefly detour and once again ask for his long time love's hand in marriage, only to once again be sent packing by her extremely stubborn father Along the way "out of town" he comes across an ill girl in the road and delivers her to Dr. Maitland, (brilliantly played by up and coming Vincent Price like actor: Edward X Young.) Who fills Stefan in on the Evils a foot. Only the Dr. is insulted that he had called for the Professor and only received a boy in trainingNone the less, Stefan turns out to be much more than a common bystander. Horror Icon; Tom Savini portrays the ultimate religious torment monger; Prester John. Scream Queen; Ingrid Pitt comes out of retirement to give a stellar performance as Anna. Many beautiful and talented supporting actors seamlessly held the story together and helped to effectively move it along to the climax.

Dark Religion and over the top, but fun and sometimes very original, gore scenes play heavily in this Hammer tribute flick. This stylish movie goes back and forth between flashbacks, surreal worlds, dreams and the character's reality.

Horror and Gore aside; This is also a very Funny movie! Slapstick, tongue and cheek humor and dark comedy raise their heads among the dark story line. Like others have stated; this really is like three great movies in one. Very Entertaining and Original.


I watched SEA OF DUST at the Rhode Island Horror Film Festival in Providence. It was the Festival's featured film and won Best Picture out of I think a couple hundred entries. The director and a few of the stars answered questions after the showing. One star, Suzy Lorraine, was even hotter in person than in the film, and she was an eye catcher in the movie.

This film is independent, yet it has a lot of cinematic touches that give it a quality feel. It even has an original classical style musical score.

I am a Savini fan and he's the star villain here, in black cape, he's more of an evil force than a real person I think. He is sucking the souls out of people and using them as soldiers in a twisted attempt to establish his version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. In his view, Christ was all about suffering and Savini intends to make everyone suffer.

The main story line that holds your interest is about a young doctor, Stefan, who is sent to investigate the strange events Savini is causing in an isolated town. He proposes to an aristocrat chick on the way but her SOB father tells him to get lost. Then he meets up with a strangely possessed but alluring country girl. I think she falls in love with him, but she also tries to kill him, as do a number of hot women in the film.

I found the scenes shot in the woods to be the creepiest and most eye catching, with strange people along the road (the evil little twin girls scared the hell out of me).

The film has a lot to it, too much to list. There is a lot of blood, torture and gore. Hot chicks licking blood off of guys' fingers. A terrified girl's head explodes. That was unexpected. Throats get slit. Some brutal stabbings.

Then they play it for laughs sometimes, poking a bit of fun at the whole evil black forest genre.

If you're a fan of Hammer films and Ingrid Pitt, it is fascinating to see her in this movie. She offs one of the leads by plunging a cross in his skull. Excellent. The guy who played "Multiple Miggs" in Silence of the Lambs is great in an axe fight.

The movie is surreal and with the ending, I'm not sure the events happened or if they were in Stefan's head because of his rejection by his would-be fiancée. He returns in vengeance and that scene is brutal.

The director also talked about the theme of religion being misused to back wars and killings. I can see that for sure, Savini's view of religion was scary.

This was a strangely exceptional movie with some stars like Savini and Pitt, a lot of good supporting cast including hot babes, great gore scenes, action, and all the time you're wondering what the hell is going on and what is going to happen next.

This deserves ten stars because it's an excellent independent film effort, I don't think it was low budget but it had to be way less than a big studio budget, and yet they managed to make something really attractive, unique and thought provoking.


The first movie at the Fangoria Festival in Vegas and the most challenging. It's not a movie for everyone. A number of the films that followed used predictable classic horror formulas to tell predictable stories. This picture seemed determined to do its own thing.

Tom Savini showed some comic chops as the over the top villain. He dominated every scene he was in, flipping his cape about like Leslie Neilson playing Dracula. It was great to hear his explanation after the film. He had such a good sense of humor about the role.

I was glad I didn't have too many preconceptions going in, because the movie offered a lot of surprises. The story was funny and profane and unusual. There was a lot of love lavished on the look. Most important, it had a weird edge to it. Unlike many of the movies that followed and tried to use a similar classic horror style, this was a movie that used its look for a purpose.

There were a lot of movies at the Fangoria Festival with bigger budgets, but none that dared to be this different.


Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.

I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the "Black Forest." He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.

On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.

On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset.


This is more of the same thing that made this cartoon popular.....but who's complaining? It's always fun to see the poor coyote try various contraptions to get the Road Runner, and then get pulverized by every one of those inventions.

The underground cave chase was different from the normal fare and was clever. It gave us an aerial view of the chase in a maze-like structure. I didn't say it was hilarious; just different from the normal above-ground antics.

This one, along with some other Road Runner shorts, are featured on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2 and the transfers of them are spectacular. The colors are magnificent.


I think I am some kind of Road Runner fan. I don't care how predictable it is, I laugh anyway. 'Beep, Beep' is predictable most of the time, although it is pretty ingenious at the same time as well. Of course the Road Runner is chased by the Coyote and of course the Coyote fails to catch the Road Runner with every new attempt. The plans the Coyote comes up with are very funny. You see exactly where it will go wrong and you will not disappointed. Well, one time you are sort of disappointed, what you think will happen does not, but it makes the joke even funnier.

If you like the Road Runner shorts you will love this one. The predictable gags work and the animation is great and pretty original at times.


OK, so in any Wile E. Coyote-Road Runner cartoons, we know that WEC is going to set up all sorts of traps for RR, but always maim himself in various ways. That certainly happens in "Beep, Beep". Predictable? I guess that it is, but when you think about it, these cartoons show how the more you try to harm someone else, the more you get harmed; sort of like how Daffy Duck always tries to undermine Bugs Bunny's integrity but Bugs sees around it.

Overall, this is another classic from the Termite Terrace crowd. Sometimes, I think that if we really had wanted to ease Cold War tensions, we could have just let the Soviet Union see Looney Tunes cartoons; I'm sure that they would have loved them. Another great one.

PS: I learned on "Jeopardy!" that Wile E. Coyote's middle name is Ethelbert.


This cartoon documents the second encounter between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner, and is definitely better than their first meeting in Fast and Furry-ous (1949).

If measured by aesthetic value, then this cartoon would not rank among the top 5 or 6 of the year 1952. Regardless, this is a very funny short. Coyote (Carnivorous Vulgaris) chases the Roadrunner (Accelerati Incredibilus) along the road and gets completely tired out. The ingenious scientific "Latin" names of the characters are very original, and has been mimicked before in other un-related cartoons. The coyote collapses and puts on a wonderful expression of- I don't know -boredom. Such Jonesesque expressions make this cartoon provide more than its fare share of laughs in seven minutes. Then he has an idea, and another laughable expression is worn. The slapstick jokes are all hilarious, and mask the fact that it is truly evil to inflict such pain on a poor, helpless, GENIUS coyote. Everyone knows, but who cares?

The old rocket gag is present, too. Coyote straps himself to a rocket, which should produce enough oomph for him to catch up with Roadrunner and grab him. Instead, the rocket shoots up into the air and becomes a firework in the distance: Eat at Joe's. This classical gag originates from this cartoon; though obvious, it still makes people laugh.

The highlight truly is the chase through the mineshaft. The two wear helmet-lights, and we see the tunnel through which the two are going, with only the lights visible. Here, the comedy reaches a peak. A must-see sequence, maybe even the best sequence in the early days of Roadrunner. The final touch is provided by the writing of Michael Maltese, as Coyote's light goes out and he unknowingly lights a match in a room full of explosives, the surface is shown where a bunch of cactus jump and spell out the letters "YIPE!" after the blast. Such small things make you laugh all through a mere seven minutes, and as soon as it starts the fun's all over. The rocket skates are another good idea, as is the free drink of water and the anvil on the tight-rope (a sequence that appears in Space Jam [1996]). To give the results of those away would be useless. The free drink proves to be a problem for Wile E. at the end of the second-last sequence: namely the rocket skates.

This classical cartoon is littered with fine animation, except for the characters. Though they are animated very well, the two characters are very primitive; which might be an understatement. Though at first it may seem weird, the humor of the ensuing sequences makes one forget.

If you like vintage Jones, watch this. If you LOVE Roadrunner, get this on video. Excellent entertainment (Rating: 8/10).


Chuck Jones's 'Beep Beep' (so called despite the fact that the Road Runner clearly says "Meep Meep") is the second of the exceptionally popular Road Runner series and is a vast improvement on its predecessor, the historically important but lacklustre 'Fast and Furry-ous'. While it features several predictable quickfire gags, 'Beep Beep' also expands on that initial cartoon with more ambitious, longer sequences. Chief among these is a fantastic, extended chase through an old mine in which we see the Coyote and the Road Runner represented by two small lights. There's also a very funny longer gag involving some rocket-powered roller-skates. 'Beep Beep' also sees a great improvement in the representation of Wile E. Coyote. Not only does he look more handsome than his scraggly prototype in 'Fast and Furry-ous' but he also draws the audience into the cartoon more with a greater amount of looks to the camera to indicate the brilliance of his idea or his fear of imminent pain. Although it's a little slow to get going (too many lingering shots of blueprints hinder the pace in some of the early gags), once 'Beep Beep' arrives at the mine shaft sequence it's clear that Jones was beginning to get a real handle on these characters and the greater possibilities of what he could do with them. There are better Road Runner cartoons than 'Beep Beep' but there's a real feeling of triumph about this cartoon, as if it were the confirmation that there was a series to be milked out of this scenario.


This second pairing of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner is a great as the first. Predictable maybe, but I don't care and still laugh so much whenever I see it. The Wile E./Road runner shorts always had the most special place in my heart. So knowing that the second disc of the Golden Collection would not only feature 11 of this, BUT they would be in chronological order (2 through 12, the first episode was on Volume 1), made me get misty eyed. I LOVE this stuff. This animated short can be seen on Disc 2 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2. It also features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: A+


As I have said before in previous comments, some programmes are there to be 'Light entertainment'. So I get somewhat frustrated when commentators seem to be expecting a program that will reveal the meaning of life, you will not get that from Cleopatra 2525 and it does not presume to offer it. What you get is a girl who was frozen and is brought back to life some 500 years later and her adaptation to this new life is realistic. She does not settle in within 10 minutes as what happens with other time travelling adventures and neither is she the female equivalent of James Bond ready to take on all comers.Cleopatra is overawed by her new surroundings and frightened by some of the weaponry on display as most of us would be. However it is light entertainment, the stories have a beginning a middle and an end in quick time and their are some surprisingly good moments of acting. The episode when there is a double of Cleopatra is particularly moving and Jennifer Sky I think gives one of the best performances of someone dying for a long long time, and being a film and television buff I know what I am talking about. Finally to prove my sincerity I have purchased all but four of the episodes and I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. The only reason I do not have the complete set is because I purchased the other episodes before realising that there was one complete box set. Victoria Pratt and Gina Torres complete the trio creditably and for light entertainment Cleopatra 2525 certainly entertained me.


ya know the concept of "guilty pleasures"? yeah, you have 'em, like admitting you watched - and enjoyed - goonies, battlestar galactica AFTER they reached earth, v the series, charlie's angels, starsky & hutch, the 1950s version of superman, or godzilla movies.

here's the ultimate in guilty pleasures. coupled with jack of all trades in a sam raimi action packed hour, this half hour slot is fast paced, easy to follow, and loaded with fun-to-watch scanlity-clad babes.

the man that brought us evil dead, xena, hercules, and the adventures of brisco county jr does it again with this 2000 update of charlies angels. we got charlie (voice) an unknown being that has the knowlege and the time to find people who need help, bosley (mouser) the gadget man, and three gorgeous babes that kick a** for a living.

and oh what a living!


I picked up a DVD at the 1 discount, having no idea what it's about (but at that price I can't resist..) In brief: I was positively surprised.

So much that I did quite some research. On the German DVD (part 2 of a series of 3), episodes were recombined into two 85 minute parts, and out of order. Here are my results, based on Wikipedia's episode list:

"Doomsday" is In My Boots + The Voice (final episode).

"War of the Machines" is Hel & High Water (1, 2) + Pod Listener + Juggernaut Down.

Well, what can I say. Underdressed girlies are of course interesting for older men. I never watched Charlie's Angels so much, so I can't compare, but the more I watched, the less I looked out for bikini tops and their fillings. Instead, the characters (both m and f) became more interesting. I can imagine feminists have their fun with this, too. All in all, maybe a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure it was :^)


This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched. Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in "Ernest Goes to Jail", most of the gags relate to electricity. I really liked the whole vacuum cleaner sequence early on. Overall, the point of the movie is just to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. This is possibly the ultimate movie that you watch with a bud. It's quite safe to say that Jim Varney will truly be missed. Knowwhaddamean? FYI: the only other cast member whom I recognized was Randall "Tex" Cobb, who played Lyle. You've surely seen him somewhere.


If I had to decide which was the best Ernest movie, and don't act like that sort of thing doesn't happen all time, it would be this one.

All of the Ernest movies are entertaining, but the best ones are the ones that have Jim Varney doing a number of different characters. Additionally, I am known to enjoy the comedy stylings of Bill Byrge and Gailard Sartain as brothers Chuck and Bobby Tulip. "Ernest Goes to Jail" contains all of those elements as well as a funny script and a supporting cast that features several beloved character actors.

And that is why I have chosen "Ernest Goes to Jail" as the king of all Ernest movies. Disagree with me if you must, but deep down you know I am right.


The last good Ernest movie, and the best at that. How can you not laugh at least once at this movie. The last line is a classic, as is Ernest's gangster impressions, his best moment on film. This has his best lines and is a crowning achievement among the brainless screwball comedies.


I Love Ernest Goes to Jail. It's one of my top 3 favorite Ernest movies. The others being Ernest Scared Stupid and Ernest Goes to Camp. In this movie Ernest (Jim Varney) works as a janitor for a bank but he wants to be a bank clerk. Soon he is assigned jury duty but soon winds up in trouble when the evil murderer Felix Nash (Varney also) knocks him out and switches places with him! Soon Ernest is in jail and is forced to act like Nash or else Nash will kill Charlotte Ernest's love interest. When they take Ernest to the electric chair thinking he's Nash he gets so electrocuted he winds up breaking out and goes off and saves Charlotte from the evil Nash! Filled with hilarious scenes and comics Ernest Goes to Jail is a movie that'll make you laugh so hard! It still does to me! Jim Varney was such a fantastic actor! He did a good job playing both good guy and bad guy! Varney was like his Toy Story Co star Tom Hanks. No matter what role they played their roles were memorabilia and that's one of the things that Varney's gonna be remembered forever for! R.I.P. Jim Varney 1949-2000. Thank you for bringing Ernest and other fantastic characters to life! 10 out of 10!


This movie brings back so many memories for me! I was very young when it came out but I remember the first time I saw it! My dad and I would always watch the "Ernest Movies" together. We hadn't seen any of them in several years and I found a couple of them really cheap. We watched them and could not stop laughing. I love all of the "Ernest Movies," but this one is my favorite.

Spoiler part!

The part I remember most is the "magnet" part. My dad still does the electric chair scene!

End Spoiler!

This is a very cheesy movie...but a great one! It's perfect for families (it isn't like a lot of the trash out there) but at the same time adults can laugh too! If you like physical humor (like facial expressions and the way people move) then this is the movie for you!


This is a really good flick with awesome humor. Jim Verney as we know was very good with facial expressions and demonstrates a lot of it in this movie.This is definitely the best of the Ernest films.I would surely recommend it to any Ernest fan out there.i find myself to have great taste in movies and I'm sure anyone will enjoy this movie. In the movie ,(Ernest) plays 2 roles, bad guy and good guy and plays them quite well. I really enjoy exaggeration type humor where things just seem impossible,like in the naked gun films for example, and there is plenty of it in this movie.I bought this movie right after i saw it. Good directing, good script, worth renting.


Ernest P. Worrell comes through with his third movie presentation. Jim Varney not only plays Ernest, but doubles as the evil Mr. Nash. From start to finish this movie has some solid laughs and makes a good family film! Rated PG for comic book violence.


This is an excellent movie. There were several parts to the movie I liked. This movie is very funny! Visit the Ernest fun club web site at www.ernestfunclub.com There are several movies such as the following: Ernest Goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest in the Army, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Rides Again Slam Dunk Ernest etc. I highly recommend these for family movies. All star Jim Varney again try visiting www.ernestfunclub.com Which is the best Ernest movie? In my opinion there are actually 2 Ernest Goes to Camp and Ernest Goes to Jail. So if you have never seen Ernest P. Worrell its time to go and see him. You will find him quite satisfactory "no what I mean"?


This was easily one of the weirder of the Ernest movies, especially in regards to the production design. What was up with the pink guard uniforms? Sadly, this film probably destroyed the Ernest series, turning the series into a straight-to-video series. However, Jim Varney gave one of his better performances by playing Nash, his criminal alter ego. A misstep in the series, but wasn't too bad in most regards.(the Electro Man routine was classic)


This is a good film. This is very funny. Yet after this film there were no good Ernest films!


If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).

In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.

A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it!


Thirty years after the 1939 classic film won Robert Donat an Oscar and made Greer Garson a star, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" overcame a multitude of problems before stumbling to the screen in this musical version. Original stars Rex Harrison and Samantha Eggar were replaced by Richard Burton and Lee Remick, who in turn were given the heave-ho in favor of - thankfully - Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. Andre Previn's score was rejected, and the one eventually used was composed by - unfortunately - Leslie Bricusse. First-time director Herbert Ross was handed the monumental task of transforming a simple love story - that of a man for both his wife and students - into a big-budget extravaganza. That it succeeds as well as it does despite the many obstacles in its way is a testament to its two stars.

Arthur Chipping is a Latin teacher at Brookfield, a boys' school in suburban England where he himself was educated. Introverted and socially inept, he is dedicated to his students but unable to inspire them. Prior to summer holiday, a former student takes him to a London music hall to see an entertainment starring Katharine Bridges, the young lady he hopes to wed. The post-performance meeting is awkward for all, and Chips - as he is commonly known - sets off to explore some of Italy's ancient ruins. Unexpectedly, he runs into Katharine, who has booked a Mediterranean cruise to allow her time to mourn a failed love affair and ponder the direction of her career. In the time they spend together, she discovers a kind and gentle man beneath the befuddled exterior, and upon returning to London pursues him in earnest. When the fall term begins, Chips returns to Brookfield with his young bride, and the two settle into a life of quiet domesticity. Complications arise when aspects of Katharine's past surface, and again when World War II intrudes in their lives, but Chips is bolstered by his wife's support, and his new-found confidence makes him a favorite among the students.

Aside from a couple of musical interludes - the delightful music hall production number "London is London" and Katharine's declaration of love, "You and I" - most of Bricusse's songs, some of them performed in voice-over as the characters explore their emotions, are easily forgettable and in no way enhance the film. Eliminate the score entirely, and "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" works quite well as a drama. Terrence Rattigan's script retains elements of the original while expanding upon it and updating it by a couple of decades. He has crafted several scenes between Chips and Katharine that beautifully delineate their devotion to each other, and infused a few with comic relief courtesy of Katharine's friend and cohort, over-the-top actress Ursula Mossbank (delightfully played by Sian Phillips, O'Toole's real-life wife at the time). He also captures life at a British public school - the equivalent of a private academy here in the States - with unerring perfection.

Ross does well as a first-time director, liberally sprinkling the film with breathtakingly photographed moments - the opening credits sequence, during which the school anthem echoes in the vast stone hallways of the school, perfectly sets the tone for the film. Costumes and sets are true to the period. The students, portrayed by non-professionals who were enrolled at the school used as Brookfield, handle their various small supporting roles well.

Highest praise is reserved for Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark in the lead roles. O'Toole was long-established as a first-class dramatic actor, so his Academy Award-nominated performance here comes as no surprise. Clark, a veteran of some two dozen B-movies in the UK and the previous year's "Finian's Rainbow," is absolutely luminous as the music hall soubrette who forsakes a theatrical career in favor of life as a schoolmaster's wife. Her golden voice enriches her songs and almost allows us to overlook how insipid most of them are, and she more than matches O'Toole in their dramatic scenes together. The chemistry between the two is palpable and leaves us with no doubt that this is a couple very much in love.

This version of "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is no classic like its predecessor, but hardly the disaster many critics described when it was released. Ignore the score, concentrate on the performances, and revel in the atmosphere Ross has put on the screen. It's a pleasant way to spend a rainy afternoon with someone you love.


When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its "Roadshow" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!

Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as "Chipping", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.)

Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.

Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.)


I enjoyed the movie and the story immensely! I have seen the original(1939 I believe) and enjoyed them both. To really appreciate the story one must be familiar with English culture and customs. The prof.(Peter O'Toole) was dedicated to his school and "the boys" in that school. It was an English "public" school, which we in the U.S. refer to as a private school (E.G. Andover). He is a very ascetic person and, on the surface, gives the appearance of being stiff, stuffy, uncaring, and weak to the point of being effeminate. He is strict in his educational standards because he DOES care for "his lads", i.e., he doesn't want them to get a cheap or weak education. He meets(through introduction) a "dance hall girl"(Petula Clark) and is totally smitten. In England at the time, the reference to "dance hall" carried the connotation of extreme sexual promiscuity and was definitely "lower class". We find that the Prof. is in fact a very tough and courageous person as well as loyal to people and institutions that he loves and/or respects. Clark becomes more than a lover and wife...she "leavens" his personality and allows him to grow as a man and a person, much to the benefit of his beloved school and his own happiness. The first movie was set BEFORE WW II, this one goes through WW II, also, it is 1969( we've had the "British Invasion"...Beetles, etc. Clark had hits and was very popular then...still is to me), the music is great, color and photography excellent. I think O'Toole played the character perfectly! There ARE dedicated people like "Chips"...all around us but many do not receive the recognition. Very enjoyable movie and story!


Caught this 1969 film on cable TCM one night. I remember when I first saw the film in Hong Kong, I really enjoyed the songs and performances by Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark. I love Clark best in Francis Ford Coppola's "Finian's Rainbow" (1968) opposite Fred Astaire, Don Francks and Tommy Steele. Simply ecstatic to learn that finally, this delightful Irish-flavored pot of gold musical is released on DVD! Ah, "it's that old devil moon (in your eyes)."

Peter O'Toole as Mr. Chips - yes, he did sing - quite a deliverance. He may not be a veteran at musical like Rex Harrison, but he inhabited the role marvelously. The scene of him running across the lawn in his cape a-flying reminds me of the PBS series, "To Serve Them All My Days" - a lovable schoolmaster and loving man, he is, 'Mr. Chipey.' Clark and O'Toole somehow gave us just the right mix of spunk and circumstance. The songs and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse are catchy as usual. The tunes of "You and I" and "Walk Through the World (with Me)" stayed with me the most all these years. And there's "What a Lot of Flowers," "And the Sky Smiled," "Fill the World with Love" - not syrupy at all. Sometimes I think if the world is immersed in Bricusse's songs and words, we would overcome all strife on earth and 'lovely' will be all our days! Yes, "Talk to the Animals," too. ("Doctor Doolittle" 1967)

Musicals are a blessing to the world of moviegoers, they are somehow larger than life. Like the music and lyrics by the Sherman Brothers (Richard M. and Robert B.) who gave us "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" (1968) and "Mary Poppins" (1964) - who wouldn't feel absolutely delighted simply uttering "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? I was tickled by even just one featured song & dance number in the Spanish film "Km.0 - Kilometer Zero" (2000). My all time favorite is French filmmaker Jacques Demy's "Young Girls of Rochefort" (1967) with colorful cast of Catherine Deneuve and (late sister) Francoise Dorléac, Jacques Perrin, Michel Piccoli, Danielle Darrieux, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris singing, dancing to Michel Legrand's music. Long live musicals.


Yes 1939/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole!


Peter O'Toole, one of our finest actors, is magnificent as a reserved school master who is dedicated to teaching young boys. He meets a show girl and falls in love. The story is one of love and devotion. Petula Clark adds spirit and sensitivity, not too mention a remarkable voice. You will enjoy this film even though the ending might not be a happy one. I enjoyed it.


I saw this film when it first came out, and didn't know what to expect exactly. What followed the Overture was one of the most pleasurable filmgoing experiences I have ever had. A lush score of songs and music by Britisher Leslie Bricusse (of Doctor Doolittle & Wilie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory fame as well as making his mark on the Broadway musical scene), and scored by the incomparable John Williams. There's not a bad song in the entire film. Plus some of the most exquisite cinematography, costume design and filming locations I have ever seen in one film. Not to mention the Academy Award nominated performance by Peter O'Toole, and the equally strong performance, in my opinion, by the wonderful Petula Clark. Now, given that Peter is not the same caliber a singer that Petula is, he still manages to sell his songs to the audience, and that, after all, is what it is all about. This is a faithful adaptation of the excellent book by James Hilton, and deserves to be treasured for generations to come. I recommend this film for family viewing, though most men will consider this a 'chick' flick. But if you like a truly great film musical, then this film is for you. But be warned that a standby box of Kleenex is just as important as popcorn for your viewing pleasure.


I wish I was first exposed to this in a movie theater when it was first released, as some of the commentors had been. It really is a treasure. To be fair I have not seen any other version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips and neither do I want to. To me this stands as a perfect version. I first saw it on TCM years ago and never forgot it. I had the pleasure of watching it with my girlfriend yesterday, although I had recorded it from TCM days earlier. There were portions of the movie in which both of us were teary-eyed, it really is a moving movie.

And shouldn't that be what movies are all about?

The music is beautiful, the film was shot wonderfully. The acting is top notch. And the story is delicate and timeless.

One of my favorite movies of all-time.


I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD ("but one day, one day..."). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable ("When I Am Older," "You and I," "Fill the World With Love," "London Is London" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film.


Peter O'Toole is Arthur Chipping a Latin Teacher with strict adherence to detail and thoroughness in helping young minds grasp the meaning and definition of Latin words and phrases. He is seen as being cold and unfair and not in touch with the times. But upon meeting Stage Actress Singer Katherine Briskit (Petula Clark) not only at a late supper after a performance of London is London but at an Amphitheater in Greece his closed minded world starts to open up.

Goodbye Mr. Chips is an MGM musical remake of the 1939 movie also from MGM. During this time musicals were out and the Hollywood studio system was in total shambles. When it premiered in New York Los Angeles and London the musical numbers were left intact but when it came to the local main street theaters world wide it was sans songs therefore making the movie shorter and gaped to the max.

Thanks to MGM/UA Home Video under Ted Turner in the late 1980's early 1990's when VHS and Laser Disc were the main home video formats of choice the musical numbers were re-instituted and the gaps closed. Laserdisc though was the only format chosen to view Goodbye Mr. Chips in the Widescreen Letterbox Format.

For awhile now the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack was only available on the original out of print Vinyl and Cassette Tape and can still be found today on Ebay.

Thanks to the wonderful people at Film Score Monthly.com in 2006 the soundtrack has been digitally remastered and remixed into a 3 CD set featuring the completely reconstructed score, the original 1969 general release album score, and narrated sequences source music and interviews a plenty. You also get 1 unused song which is a real lost gem, "Tomorrow with Me" by Petula Clark which would have been chosen in place of "You and I" before hand.

This movie is both a classic musical and a real tribute to educators everywhere. I most certainly would buy this movie if Warner Bros. MGM and Sony would put their money where there mouth is and get this film restored from all master film sources and put it on both DVD and Blu Ray with all the bells and whistles put back into place with all the extras you can find and stuff into a release.


I love this movie because every single element of it is nothing less than excellent. I will quickly praise a few of them. Peter O'Toole gives us one of his great performances as he becomes the definitive Mr. Chips. Petula Clark, has a beautiful voice and is perfect as Katharine. The director was able to bring the story to the screen in a fresh new way. Combine that with the fantastic and creative cinematography, editing, writing, etc., and you have a film that shows the fine quality of its production. I can't praise the well-planned camera work enough, it moves us up and around, zooming in and out, giving us the best views of, and letting the locations become part of the scene. Petula Clark's last song 'YOU AND I' is just 3 beautifully composed long takes, and in this era of 2 second takes, I can appreciate the extra care that everyone involved had to give to get those long scenes perfect. The music is great, and the songs move the story along just as they should. Leslie Bricusse is one of my favorite composers. Listen to these songs, how could anyone not like them? This is a very romantic story between two people nearing middle age that find each other, bring out the best in each other, and it lasts till the end of their lives. Excellent production values, acting, camera work, and music, make this movie well worth watching.


"Goodbye, Mr. Chips" is a superbly written and photographed musical version of the classic 1939 film. Aside from Peter O'Toole's wonderfully controlled, understated performance as the pedantic schoolmaster who finds love and is changed by it, the film contains hundreds of stunning visuals, from Grecian ruins to London side streets to an extended countryside montage. The music and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse have been criticized as being dull or not-up-to par for film musicals, but they are used to enhance the story rather than tell it. Many songs are used to underscore montages or scenes; the few that don't are relegated to "show biz" numbers. In this manner, the songs do not intrude upon this delicate story but heighten what the characters are thinking or feeling. "Where Did My Childhood Go?", "Walk Through the World With Me", and "You and I" are especially effective. An absorbing, brilliantly acted, directed and written film.


"Chips" is an excellent blend of music, light comedy and drama with a picture perfect performance by Peter O' Toole and and effortless romantic supporting performance by Petula Clark. O' Toole is able to show the shy, uncommunicative teacher that wishes so much to be loved by his students and is only able to express his love when he married Katherine (Clark). She brings him the world "What a lot of flowers" and he is forever changed. He becomes the beloved headmaster of Brookfield through tragedy but knows he could only have achieved his goal through Katherine's love. The songs (with the exception of the Music hall number) are all "thought-songs" coming from character's emotions and thoughts and, the more you listen to them, the more beautiful they become - "Walk through the World with Me" and "You and I". O'Toole's finest moment is the final speech he gives to the students (it was the reason for the Oscar nomination). As a teacher, we question what "book" learning ever gets through - but, as Chips says, we did teach them how to behave with each other and that is what really counts. Beautifully filmed, perfectly orchestrated by John Williams and one of the most moving films about love and how it can change you. "Did I Fill the World with Love?" the boys sing their school song. By the end, Chips realizes he was able to do it - but only cause Catherine was there.


Great acting is best rewarded by pairing with a melodramatic script which truly elevates the human spirit. To all those minions who toil each and every day, take heart! your patience is virtuous. Your forbearance and decency will evidence, in ways you will never anticipate. This is your Great Story. I do not believe you can watch through to the end without a wisp of moisture in that hardened eye. Or, can you? For me, it would not be so... the story is relentless! The idealist, denied his due. Will anyone speak up? Ah! but you will need to see the show yourselves! observe the schoolmaster in his prime, without the notice and peerage the observer would certainly expect. And why does he continue so? Yes! you must watch O'Toole's performance for yourselves! I can only wish it were still 'in print' to purchase, then present to my friends as my evidence of respect for their faithful lives.


Great story, great music. A heartwarming love story that's beautiful to watch and delightful to listen to. Too bad there is no soundtrack CD.


Peter O'Toole gives a brilliant performance in this movie. I have seen the original version with Robert Donat and I much prefer Peter O'Toole's performance and the movie in general even though it is a musical. I've really never seen anything that Mr. O'Toole is in that I don't like. He is a brilliant actor, multi-talented, giving performances full of passion and depth. Petula Clark also gave a surprisingly good performance and was perfect for the part. It is an all-around heartwarming movie, full of tenderness and bittersweet fun. I will always remember (in para-phrase) the line where Mr. Chips regrets he has never given her children, and she replies, "Of course you have, hundreds of them -- all boys." Thank you for the opportunity to vote for this movie and to voice my opinion.


30 years after the original film, "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" was made over as a musical. Peter O'Toole and Petula Clarke starred in this wonderful remake of the beloved schoolteacher, Chippington, who is referred to as Chips by his beloved wife.

O'Toole was excellent here and received another Oscar nomination. You have to wonder what Peter O'Toole has to do to win an Oscar. He has lost the coveted award 8 times now. You also have to wonder that he lost in 1969 to John Wayne for "True Grit," which was really a testament to Mr. Wayne's long career and popularity. This year was also marked by great performances by Richard Burton, "Anne of the Thousand Days," as well as Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight for "Midnight Cowboy."

Surprised to see Petula Clarke cast as Mrs. Chippington. However, as this was a musical, a beautiful voice came well through and she did a nice piece of acting as well.

Who can forget the scene when Chips carries on in the class despite the news that his beloved has been killed in a bombing. He never got to tell her the wonderful news of his pending promotion.

The beautiful cinematography and music only enhanced a truly memorable experience.


This is a truly wonderful love story. I liked the songs, however even if you do not, you have to love the story. Peter O'Toole is at his best and Petula Clark is doing fine as well. I first saw this when I was about 13 and loved it then. Now in my forties, I still enjoy it, probably even more. Still makes me cry and laugh and feel good. It is a movie to watch only with a new age guy or by yourself as it is a chick flick. But whats wrong with that. Need a little romance and maybe a little cry, try this movie.


Silent historical drama based on the story of Anne Boleyn, newly arrived lady-in-waiting to the Queen who catches the lustful eye of Henry VIII, bad-tempered King of England who loves to feast, drink, hunt, be entertained by his court jester, watch jousts, and chase around after young beauties who jump out of cakes and assorted attractive females around the castle. Well, he's soon annulled his marriage, married Anne, and telling her it is her holy duty to produce a male heir. She fails on that score and he soon has his eye on yet another lady-in-waiting. Meanwhile, Anne spends pretty much the entire film looking hesitant, perturbed, or downright ready to burst into tears. She just doesn't come across as a happy camper (or is it just bad acting?!).

This film is a solid piece of entertainment, with an absorbing story that held my interest for two hours - plus I enjoyed seeing the very lavish medieval costuming featured here on a gorgeous sepia tinted print. Emil Jannings is quite striking and memorable in his well-done portrayal of King Henry the Eighth - he really seemed like he WAS Henry the Eighth. I am not so sure about the performance given by the actress who plays Anne, seemed a bit over the top. The DVD of this film features an appropriate, nicely done piano score that perfectly suits this story. Quite a good film.


Nothing dull about this movie, which is held together by fully realized characters with some depth to them. Even the hooded torturers have body language. Jannings' performance is brilliant, all will, want and need. A Henry VIII as he must have been. Henny Porten is, maybe, nobler and purer than Anne Boleyn, but she plays the part as written: A victim caught in the jaws of a big (huge) baby.

Sparkuhl's cinematography is gorgeous in the restoration, the tints sensuous. Lubitsch lets these characters breathe and reveal their corruption down to the tiniest of meannesses. He takes his time, which can try the patience of an audience accustomed to being carried away by action, but the time is worth spending. Slow your heartbeat and watch this minor miracle of German silent film.


Continuing with the exclusive film programme about complicated relationships in some European courts, last night in the Schloss theatre was shown "Anna Boleyn", a film directed by the great Teutonic film director Herr Ernst Lubitsch. The film depicts the terrible story of the Queen consort of the British King Henry VIII. She was executed by her husband ( well, not exactly, the King ordered the executioners to do his dirty work) not to mention that this marriage caused an important political and religious historical event, the English Reformation.

The film stars Dame Henny Porten, Germany's first screen superstar during those early years and Herr Emil Jannings, Germany's fattest actor in that silent era. Both play their characters in a suitable way; Dame Porten as an innocent aristocrat who becomes progressively interested in the power that the court offers her and Herr Jannings as the unscrupulous, whimsical and womanizing British monarch, a character very suitable for this German actor who overacts appropriately, given the extravagance and excessive personality of the character himself.

In the early film period Herr Lubitsch was known for his outstanding costume films, colossal productions with big budgets ( "Anna Boleyn" cost about 8 million marks, a fortune even for this German count ) taking great care in magnificent decors as can be seen during the coronation procession in Westminster Abbey scene which employed 4.000 extras ( idle Germans of that time were used, causing revolutionary workers to create a fuss when German President Friedrich Ebert visited the set during filming).

Besides the spectacle, one of the most important aspect of this and every film of Herr Lubitsch, even during his epic period, is the complex relationship between the main characters. We experience a game of different interests, double meanings, and the complicated art of flirting but what is treated lightly at first ends in tragedy. The importance of those historical facts is brought to bear in an effective way but Lubitsch is really more interested in the changing relationship between Henry VIII and Anna Boleyn.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must take care that one of his fat and rich heiress doesn't lose her head for this Teutonic aristocrat.

Herr Graf Ferdinand Von Galitzien http://ferdinandvongalitzien.blogspot.com/


Though, short lived "The Amazing Spider-Man" was one of the best made for TV versions of a famed comic book hero. Only "Wonder Woman" (Lynda Carter) (the best of the genre and "The Incredible Hulk" (Bill Bixby, Lou Ferrigno) were better.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" outclasses the 1966-1968 "Batman", because the high camp elements of the latter often ruin the adventure. "Spider-Man" outclasses all three television interpretations of "Superman"- "Lois and Clark", "Smallville", and of course the George Reeves "Superman" which brings up the rear.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" was an action drama, during the late 1970's, the pre-CGI era, when stunts had to be performed by stunt men, not in the database of a computer. "Spider-Man" had its own very talented stuntman to perform the death defying daredevil acrobatics. His name was Fred Waugh, who donned the spidy suit for the action sequences. Nicholas Hammond, better known as one of Julie Andrew's children on the all-time movie classic "The Sound of Music" was Spider-Man during the dialogue scenes. Hammond's Spider-Man also had his own secret identity as Peter Parker, similar to Christopher Reeve- Superman/ Clark Kent, Adam West-Batman/Bruce Wayne, and of course Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince.

It's unfortunate that the series only had thirteen episodes. Because when the first episode hit the airwaves in November of 1977, the entire country was watching it on CBS that Wednesday night. In all fairness, CBS should release this pilot episode as well as "The Deadly Dust", the "Captive Tower" etc. on DVD shortly. "Spider-Man" was short lived, but did have a cult following, and in my opinion was a heck of a lot better than the movie interpretation of the famed comic book hero starring Toby McGuire.

CBS might be hesitant to release these episodes for two reasons. (A) There might not be a broad market for them based on the lack of longevity of the series and a generation of children and young people who weren't born when the series originally aired in the 1970's. (B) One of the early "Spider-Man" episodes dealt with a terrorist with designs on the World Trade Center, which was attacked twice many years after this show went off the air, in 1993, and of course the devastating attack against this country on 9/11/01 in which the towers were destroyed and many innocent lives were lost.

However I don't think that it would be in bad taste to release this "Spider-Man" episode even if the show was adventure, derived from a comic book, and camp in nature. The live action "Amazing Spider-Man" doesn't have a large following but it has a cult following. If and when CBS releases it out on DVD this cult following could be explained along with the episode in which Spiderman saved the towers in 1978, but how in September of 2001 real life proved to be different from the movies. I like to follow the news, but I also like Science Fiction/Fantasy. Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the release of "The Amazing Spider-Man on DVD".


When I was a kid I remembered this show but thought that now as an adult the show might be a bit dated. Well yes it is but for me that makes the show more retro (and the musics very funky).

This show is mostly well written. I do think its a travesty that this show was cancelled after one season especially when this show was more popular than the Incredible Hulk.

I think fans should overlook the poor special effects and enjoy the stories.

This next sentence contains spoilers: My favourite episode as a kid was when there were two spiderman that battle against each other interestingly a similar idea is concocted in Spiderman 3 the movie. I liked the ideas in this TV show some will hate it. I believe Stan Lee wasn't a fan.


Some people think this was a rather bad TV series, with cheesy effects. (considering it was filmed between 1977-1979) but really, look back at those years and think, "We didn't have computers back then." so if you think about it, it's a rather good TV series.

I always figured bad ratings killed the show, but no. the network did. they canceled out their theme as "The superhero network" and abandoned a short lived spider-man series. if it had gone on, it probably would have run well into the 80's, and if it was really lucky (And i mean really lucky), the early 90s.

And no one wanted to pick this series up.

Anyways, Jolly old (or young) Nicholas Hammond, of The sound of music fame, is brought to the TV screen as peter parker, the Secret identity of the amazing spider-man. along the series, peter deals with a clone, a beautiful girl from a foreign country, and a corrupt politician.

while the series is way out of timeline (being that peter is already graduated from university, and thats when he gets bit, and uncle Ben is already dead,) The audience is treated to action, suspense, and the attitude that the characters have towards peter and his alter ego, spider-man.

While it's also slightly disappointing that Robert. F Simon looks nothing like J.J.Jameson, it's not so disappointing that Betty grant isn't Betty grant, but a hot African American girl (who reminds me of Halle berry, who is one of the hottest women on the planet) so really, this one wasn't so bad.

but considering the time, and how much drama they packed into this one, it kind of foreshadows what bad TV is today. either way, it's entertaining, even for today.

8/10


Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show.


I saw the movie yesterday and was shocked by it, but even more shocked by some of the comments I have read here. One person wrote that it was ambiguous if the victim of the torture was guilty or not--therefore... One person wrote that since he wasn't an American citizen, therefore... Some people comment that the people in the Middle East hate us and want us dead, therefore... So are we saying then that it is right to torture someone who is guilty of a crime? Are we saying it is right to torture someone who is not an American Citizen? Are we saying that it is right to torture someone who may hate us and want us dead? Are we saying that, as is written in the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States that "torture is wrong, but some torture is less wrong than others?" When does it become "right" to torture? THAT is why this movie is powerful-- it is ambiguous, but not about torture. Torture is always wrong, and if we are willing to do it, even in the name of justice and "National Security" or "freedom and democracy" then we are wrong and we are evil; we are doing exactly what we are accusing our enemies of doing (and we are calling them "wrong" in the same breath.) My favorite line in the film was "if you don't want to compromise join Amnesty International." Right on.


Rendition presents a very topical matter in the form of a very tense thriller. It's a gripping, and not a preaching, movie. Seeing it in an Arab country with a mixture of Arabian and European audience gave it an extra level of atmosphere. The audience was totally gripped by the film and gave it a loud applause afterwards. The story of an Egyptian, married to an American, picked up on the suspicion of links to terrorist organizations and shipped to a friendly (with US) Arab country for "enhanced interrogation (as Meryl Streep's character states in the film: "we have no torture in the US") seems to be from the front page of todays news. There is a very neat link between the various characters which appear in the movie and the pace of the film never drops. The movies'message seems to be (as stated by Jake Gyllenhal's character in the film) that by abducting and torturing suspects you create many more terrorists. The acting is uniformly excellent with Streep and Reese Witherspoon the stand outs. Not to be missed.


I think this was the most outstanding edge-of-your-seat thriller that I have seen in a long time. The research for the film was thorough, the writer Kelly Sane has left no loose ends. The cast was seasoned (fantastic performances all round). Omar Metwally was outstanding.

The cinematography is poetic, music enchanting and the overall effect highly satisfying.

Rendition goes into territory that even the media fears to tread. It is really a wakeup call for those involved with espionage and the legal web that is the "War on Terror".

A woman walked out of the theater and asked me "does this really happen"? That in itself speaks of Gavin Hood's masterful achievement.


Imagine you have just been on a plane for 18 hours. You have been on a business trip to South Africa. You are a high-paid professional. You've lived in the US for 20 years. You are in your thirties, you have a wife a little boy and another baby on the way. One thing, even though you have a green card, you are still Egyptian. On transit you are asked to come with 2 security guards, next thing you know you are overpowered, hooded and chained and after a brief ( but still reasonably civil) interrogation you are to be rendered! This is what happens to Anwar el Ibrahimi at the beginning of the movie. His is a story of pain and ( literally )torture. It's one of several story lines. One follows his wife's attempts to get more information. One follows the (cold) bureaucrats behind the rendition. Another story deals with the family of the man who leads the interrogation of Anwar el Ibrahimi. There are some other stories too and by the end they all neatly come together. Though the more famous actors like Reese Witherspoon ( as the distraught pregnant wife ) Jake Gyllenhaal ( as the CIA rookie forced to watch the interrogation in Northern Africa) and Meryl Streep ( as CIA hotshot Corine Whitman) it is really the more unknown actors that carry the story and give it it's heart. For me the actor playing the unfortunate Mr El Ibrahimi ( Omar Metwally ) was the heart and soul of this movie. His portrayal of a man in distress was shockingly well done. It's almost as if he was being tortured for real! Also Israeli actor Yigal Naor was very impressive as the part worried family-man and part extremely cruel chief of torture. Hard to watch and not exactly fun, but still very worthwhile.


I liked this movie. I saw it to a packed house at the Toronto International Film Festival the day after the gala opener which must have gone over well. The director, Gavin Hood was supposed to be present for today's screening, but alas his twins were born just hours before, so he had to jet on a flight back. '2 birthings in 24 hours' was how he joked about it.

Rendition refers to 'extraordinary rendition' -- a term whereby suspected terrorists in the US can be sent, without the legal consent of their parents nations, to prisons abroad to be questioned and detained.

It's fairly predictable -- innocent Egyptian-American man wrongly accused of being a terrorist 'goes missing' while en route from South Africa to Washingon DC. He is sent abroad, while wife at home (Reese Witherspoon) fights to find him and free him. But what makes this movie special are some nice choices in story-telling: 1) a human-touch story of what is going on in the locale where a suicide bomb-detonated; 2) the humanity of a CIA agent trying to understand and be honest with what is really going on; and 3) the chronology of story-telling which makes it a tight, taut tale that moves and jerks at the right moments. Ah -- relief! And a mix of emotions that swirl around as the story fights for an ending.

All-around strong acting with Meryl Streep as a standout vixen.


In this day and age in which just about every other news story involves discussions of waterboarding, images of Abu Ghraib, or tales of forced detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Gavin Hood's "Rendition" is about as up-to-the-minute and timely a movie as is ever likely to come out of the entertainment mills of mainstream Hollywood. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect film, but neither does it merit the caterwauling opprobrium it has received at the hands of critics from all across the ideological and political spectrum.

The term "rendition" refers to the ability of the CIA to arrest any individuals it suspects of terrorist dealings, then to whisk them away in secret to a foreign country to interrogate and torture them for an indefinite period of time, all without due process of law. Anwar El-Ibrahimi is an Egyptian man who has been living for twenty years in the United States. He has an American wife, a young son and a new baby on the way. He seems a very unlikely candidate for a terrorist, yet one day, without warning or explanation, Anwar is seized and taken to an undisclosed location where he is subjected to brutal torture until he admits his involvement with a terrorist organization that Anwar claims to know nothing about.

On the negative side, "Rendition" falters occasionally in its storytelling abilities, often biting off a little more than it can chew in terms of both plot and character. The ostensible focal point is Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA agent who is brought in to observe Anwar's "interrogation" at the hands of Egyptian officials. The problem is that, as conceived by writer Kelley Sane and enacted by Jake Gyllenhaal, Freeman seems too much of a naïve "boy scout" to make for a very plausible agent, and he isn't given the screen time he needs to develop fully as a character. We know little about him at the beginning and even less, it seems, at the end. He "goes through the motions," but we learn precious little about the man within. Thus, without a strong center of gravity to hold it all together, the film occasionally feels as if it is coming apart at the seams, with story elements flying off in all directions. A similar problem occurs with Anwar's distraught wife, played by Reese Witherspoon, a woman we never get to know much about apart from what we can see on the surface. Gyllenhaal and Witherspoon have both proved themselves to be fine actors under other circumstances, but here they are hemmed in by a restrictive screenplay that rarely lets them go beyond a single recurring note in their performances.

What makes "Rendition" an ultimately powerful film, however, is the extreme seriousness of the subject matter and the way in which two concurrently running plot lines elegantly dovetail into one another in the movie's closing stretches. It may make for a slightly more contrived story than perhaps we might have liked on this subject, but, hey, this is Hollywood after all, and the film has to pay SOME deference to mass audience expectations if it is to get itself green lighted, let alone see the light of day as a completed project.

Two of the supporting performances are particularly compelling in the film: Omar Metwally who makes palpable the terror of a man caught in a real life Kafkaesque nightmare from which he cannot awaken, and Yigal Naor who makes a surprisingly complex character out of the chief interrogator/torturer. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin and Peter Sarsgaard also make their marks in smaller roles. Special mention should also be made of the warm and richly hued cinematography of Dion Beebe.

Does the movie oversimplify the issues? Probably. Does it stack the deck in favor of the torture victim and against the evil government forces? Most definitely. (One wonders how the movie would have played if Anwar really WERE a terrorist). Yet, the movie has the guts to tread on controversial ground. It isn't afraid to raise dicey questions or risk the disapproval of some for the political stances it takes. It openly ponders the issue of just how DOES a nation hold fast to its hard-won principle of "civil liberties for all" in the face of terrorism and fear. And just how much courage does it take for people of good will to finally stand up and say "enough is enough," even at the risk of being branded terrorist-appeasing and unpatriotic by those in power? (The movie also does not, in any way, deny the reality of extreme Islamic terrorism).

Thus, to reject "Rendition" out of hand would be to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. "Rendition" may not be perfect, but it IS good, and it has something of importance to say about the world in which we now live. And that alone makes it very much worth seeing.


"I fear you speak upon the rack, where men enforced do speak anything." This Shakespearean line from The Merchant of Venice is echoed again in the new film Rendition which introduces the viewer to the "enhanced methods of interrogation", renditions, which began in the Clinton Administration and have become more commonplace since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The film features an all-star cast, with Oscar winners Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and Reese Witherspoon, as well as Peter Sarsgaard, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Omar Metwally. Supporting roles filled by unfamiliar actors deliver as well, sucking the audience into the plot, and showing how many people can be affected by overseas terror attacks, and our means of investigating them.

Rendition follows an Egyptian born terrorism suspect (Metwally) who is taken by U.S. officials following his flight from South Africa to Washington DC to an undisclosed prison overseas. His pregnant wife (Witherspoon) ventures to Washington DC to find out about his disappearance through a family friend and Senator's employee (Sarsgaard). Gyllenhaal plays a young CIA analyst at the overseas detention facility who monitors the violent interrogation.

This film follows the emotional plights of the torture victim (Metwally), and those involved in obtaining the supposed information from him. Some, like the CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal), are visibly shaken and horrified by the methods exercised, while others, the stern Senator (Streep) and foreign interrogator (Yigal Naor), see it as necessary and effective.

The film may be described by some as a political piece, but is ultimately an emotional one. Metwally's performance as the tortured prisoner is Oscar-worthy. The film does not intend to preach, but rather to question and inform the audience on a topic that does not often have a human face put on it. Renditions have been known to work, but have also been known to produce false information from innocent prisoners. The film simply depicts the emotional struggles of those involved in such grave business, and does so in a way that will affect every viewer differently. The film will keep your interest, and have you engaged in each of the character's plights.


The film tackles the here and now horror of "rendition" with a multi-cast trans-global account of all involved. No-one gets off lightly because we see the blindness of the players as they carve out their own slice of the worldwide game piling hatred and misery on their "enemies" and themselves in equal measure.

The interplay between the sympathetic Senator's Aide (played in scintillating style by Peter Sarsgaard) and the real Washington power-mongers is electrifying. Meanwhile out in the field, new CIA man (Jake Gyllenhaal) goes through a sea change in his attitude to the USA's new found cosiness with torture. Sudden though his rejection of what he initially tacitly condoned is, one has to ask why on earth would anyone who calls him or herself civilized stand and watch anyone be humiliated and abused in this way? The film has few heroes - perhaps Gyllenhaal's flawed and vacillating CIA man is the exception and a necessary indulgence to make the film offer a sliver of hope.

The sad fact of course is that this film isn't fiction at all, but a wake up call to those with a shred of decency left in them. The awful truth is that we in the UK and USA have lost the moral plot and this film shows how low we are prepared to go. All this in the name of freedom! There's a wonderful line in the script that says that torture is a sure way to swell the numbers of our enemies. This is already happening in real life and we should listen to the message that this film delivers and start using our might and money much more intelligently!! The message seems to be that any of us who claim that rendition, torture and the abuse of basic human rights are necessary to protect our way of life are as wrong-headed and stultifyingly stupid as the Jihadists and suicide bombers.

All praise to the sensibilities of a talented South African director with a eye on the gross unfairness of how power is exercised, and a cast of principled mainstream actors from the US and beyond. Oh, and by the way, the film has a sting in its tail with the ending a clever and thought provoking surprise (which I won't give away).

I saw the film in an early London preview so it has not yet been widely written up but I'm glad to say that the tide of less than glowing reviews seems to be turning. The BBC review has been very strongly in support and they (and I) suspect that much of the negative comments come from those who see the world through the simple specs of Hollywood - where the good guys and the bad guys are cardboard cut-outs. Hence the reason that many of the truly great films of the year are increasingly indie and/or non-US pix.


Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars.


Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.

Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.

Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.

Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.

Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations.

Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities.

What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)!


The powerhouse cast pulls the crowd in the theatre, despite the ominous title. Jake Gyllenhaal guested on Conan O'Brien to promote the movie and explained that 'Rendition' was a euphemism for obtaining information via torture. Since 9/11, 'extraordinary rendition' allowed the government's intelligence agency to extricate people unquestioningly without due process and use any means necessary in exchange for information.

Gyllenhaal plays rookie CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (note the irony) who is torn about his assignment which renders him as a mere observer to unorthodox interrogation proceedings at an underground detention facility outside the US.

Omar Metwally plays the suspected terrorist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, Egyptian national and green card-carrying hubby of American Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Isabella and her son wait for Anwar to come home from a scientific conference when he suddenly disappears from the plane's passenger manifest. She seeks help from her college friend who works in government and learns that the Head of Intelligence, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep) is behind it all.

Rendition is directed by Hollywood newbie Gavin Hood (who is set to do X-Men Origins: Wolverine), and begs the question of whether such 'extraordinary rendition' is exercised in real life. The movie was released locally in the wake of the Glorietta explosion (bombing/mishap?), and a pivotal scene in the movie is when a bomb explodes in a public plaza, so that must have sent chills up every moviegoer's spine. Seeing the exploding tableau with a lone red and yellow sign Aajala (Ayala?) on the upper right hand of the screen, plus the effect of silence and slow-moving images magnified the impact of the scene's real-life coincidence.

There are lessons to learn from this movie and it all boils down to personal decisions we make, daily. We all have choices we can exercise at will, and we often do not always (want to) see how these affect others, who may end up as hapless victims of circumstance. What 'the greater good' is should not have to be a forced choice our leaders have to take if we each already decide correctly at the source. Now that's a utopia worth building.


Some films are designed to just entertain you, others to make you laugh, or cry, or uplift, others, like this, aim to provoke, to make you think, and to make you angry. I was angry during this film, not at the film, but at the fact that it was true, that America, the free, does torture in the illogical view that it is doing it for the greater good. The torture scenes in this movie were harrowing, the indifference of people was shattering, the film was compelling in its argument, and showed just how wrong it is to torture people. Of course now that makes me a "bleeding liberal" labels shoved on people by others who shut their minds to the facts that this does happen and should not. People who don't realise that as the movie said, for every person tortured,you get ten or one hundred people rise up to perform acts of vengeance. You get an ever increasing cycle of violence. This film did not make me hate America, although I can see how it could do, but it made me hate the way that America has reacted in its post 9/11 world. There is a significant quote in the film, just after we have learned that 19 people have died and seventy five were injured in the bomb scene, the quote is "one American is dead" - that makes the difference. You cannot kill an American, America can kill thousands but you cannot kill a single American, or they will do whatever it takes, including torture to enact justice. This is the American way apparently. Call me a liberal, call me naive (although I think the people who think torture is fine are naive) call me deluded, call me anything you like, but this film is a brilliant example of what is wrong in America and the west today. I wish this film would be shown to all school students, at a minimum. This film will stay with me a long time, part of me wishes I could forget it, because I wish this type of thing never happened, but I know it does, the other part of me wishes I would never forget, because we need to remember these shameful events to prevent them from happening again. Whatever happens to me, this film will be with me for a long time, and I will be telling everyone I know to watch it, not to be entertained, but to be provoked, because sometimes we all need to be provoked.


CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) gets to see his first secret location interrogation when Anwar (Metwally) is accused of having contact with a known terrorist bomb maker. Anwar's wife (Witherspoon) is frantic regarding the whereabouts of her husband .

Don't you just hate it when the title of a movie sends you to a dictionary? I must have an old edition as this Rendition is not a musical piece. No, it's the government's way of legally taking a resident or citizen somewhere to interrogate him and possibly use some torture to get the desired information.

While watching this movie I was reminded of a similar story line in the Crossing Jordan TV show (now off the air), and I expect we will see even more of these story lines. It's inevitable. The events of 911 are the catalysts.

This is a tough one to watch because we don't like to see people tortured and our government not telling the truth about things. We like the idea that no matter what happens or happened that we can go somewhere to find answers, but when that door is closed to us, we are truly lost and without hope as Anwar's wife was.

Performances by all were first class and it's possible we may see more of Igai Naor (I have no idea how to pronounce it) because he resembles and can act like Telly Savalas. No kidding.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes


Extraordinary Rendition is a frightening practice authorized, surprisingly, under Clinton, that allows the U.S. government to seize and hold anyone suspected, seemingly for any reason, of being a terrorist against the United States. This is a touchy issue, especially after 9/11, because supporters of the practice will always criticize the opposition as withholding vital power from the U.S. that it needs to effectively fight terror. Fanatic supporters will label the opposition as terrorists in themselves.

But like a recent film that lent a similar level of humanity to the death penalty, The Life of David Gale, Rendition shows us a story of the misuse of extraordinary rendition, or at least the ease with which it can be exploited and falsely applied. The story involves Anwar El- Abrahimi, an American chemical engineer born in Egypt who is seized on his way back to America from giving a lecture in Egypt. The cause given is that he made phone calls to a known terrorist. No proof is ever given (or needed) that it was Anwar that made the calls, that his phone was never lost of stolen.

Meanwhile, Anwar's extremely pregnant wife, Isabella, is back in the states frantically trying to find her husband, who got onto a plane to Chicago but apparently never got off. The flimsy explanation that he was never there evaporates when she discovers that he made an in-flight purchase using his credit card.

Lately I have been researching modern Chinese history, particularly that of the astonishingly selfish and brutal dictatorship set up by Mao Tse-tung, and it is more than a little frightening to see the similarities between extraordinary rendition and some of Mao's brutal scare tactics, including his public executions (which the people were forced to watch), and extensive use of torture specifically used to extract "confessions."

It is pretty disturbing to notice that Mao specifically did these things to create an environment of fear in order to achieve obedience from the Chinese people. To say that the Bush administration has not created an environment of fear and continues to milk it for everything it's worth would be naïve in the extreme, and although extraordinary rendition was not created under Bush, it is clear that it does more harm than good.

Adding to the thickness of the film is Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal), who works behind a desk for the CIA and has little field experience, until his boss is assassinated and he suddenly finds himself supervising the torture of a man that he quickly comes to doubt has anything to reveal. Fatima's (Freeman's boss) daughter also plays a pivotal role, as does a senatorial aide played by Peter Sarsgaard, who might have the most satisfying role in the movie. Meryl Streep is also suitably cold and clinical as a chilly senator with a dogmatic support of the necessity and practice of rendition.

As a political thriller, the movie is remarkably well-crafted and paced. But the scariest thing about it is that this is all real. The movie's goal is to get people to really think about the things done in America's name, especially when they claim to be done to prevent those same things. Conducting terror in the name of preventing terror will win no sympathy for us, nor will extracting confessions through brutal torture, which is the basest form of criminal investigation.

Unfortunately, we are gradually heading in that direction, of doing these things more rather than less. The frightening question is what is the event that is going to take place at some point in the future to convince us to stop and head the other way, toward civilization and peace, or will we just keep heading toward a military dictatorship until we finally get there?


I'm Egyptian. I have a green card. I have been living in the US since 1991. I have a very common Arabic name. I'm married (non-American but non-Egyptian, non-Arab wife). I have children who are born in the US. I have a PhD in Cell Biology from the US and I travel for conferences. I make 6 figure income and I own a home in the Washington, DC area. I pay my taxes and outside 1 or 2 parking tickets I have no blemish on my record since I came to this country in 1991. I look more Egyptian than the Ibrahimi character but my spoken English is as good as his.

A couple of months ago I was returning from a conference/company business in Spain through Munich Germany to Washington, DC (Home). I was picked up in Munich airport by a German officer as soon as I got off the Madrid plane. He was waiting for me. He was about to start interrogating me until I simply told him "I have no business in Germany, I'm just passing through". He had let me go with the utmost disappointment. That was nothing compared to what happened at Washington, Dulles airport (Which was not nearly as bad as what happened to Ibrahimi in the movie). The customs officer asked me a couple of questions about the length and purpose of my trip. He then wrote a letter C on my custom declaration form and let me go. After I picked up my checked bag I was stopped at the last exit point (Some Homeland Security crap). I sat there for 3 hours along with many different people of many different nationalities. I was not told the reason for my detainment. I was not allowed to use my phone or ANY other phone. I was feisty at first asking to be told of the reason or let me go but decided to suck it up and just wait and see. I asked if I can call my wife to tell her that I'm going to be late but was told no. When I tried to use my phone and as soon as my wife said "hello", an officer yanked the phone out of hand and threatened me to confiscate it. When I asked about needing to call home because my family is waiting, they said "Three hours is nothing, we will make contact after 5 hours". When I asked to use the bathroom, an officer accompanied me there. It toilet was funny; I guess it was a prison style toilet that is all metal with no toilet seat. Finally, they called my name and gave me my passport/green card and said you can go. I asked what the problem was, they said "nothing"!! I know it was only 3 hours but I was dead tired and wanted to go home to see my wife and kids.

As for the movie, it was very well made. Unlike most movies that involve Arabs and use non-Arab actors who just speak gibberish, this movie the Arabic was 100% correct. I assume the country is Morocco (North Africa).


Very good political thriller regarding the aftermath of terrorism and the using of political torture to obtain one's objectives in flushing out the terrorists.

The story is interwoven where two families are adversely affected by the terrorist events.

This is one of Meryl Streep's best roles in years. She plays a cold, calculating, cunning director of the CIA who allows these things to go on. She is out of the George Bush-Dick Cheney school of handling the war on terrorism. Had her part been expanded, Miss Streep certainly would have been up for an award at Oscar time.

Jake Gyllenhaal is our hero. A CIA agent who really can't take what's going on.

We have a terrorist who actually has a heart and it costs him his life in this well directed, finely paced film.

Alan Arkin appears briefly in the part of a conniving senator. Mr. Arkin seems to get better with age.


To solve a challenging problem, you need to start by asking the right questions. Without these, even the biggest library of information is useless. This movie does just that - where other movies guide your thinking along a story board, this film pulls at your emotions and your understanding of justice and what's permissible. These questions will tug at you throughout, challenging your assumptions as the characters develop. This movie is important. It's relevant, and a must see for anybody who stays informed of current affairs. The fact it's highly entertaining and includes a slew of movie stars only improves the execution. My advice: watch it with a serious crowd or better yet, by yourself, not unlike how you'd read an editorial from your favorite news magazine. In this case there is one difference: the answers will be your own.


This was an excellent movie with good acting and it keeps your attention through to the very end. Maybe people are either tired or uncomfortable with the subject matter and that's why it's being trashing so much. It could also be too deep for many of the viewers out there who give movies like the American Pie series higher ratings.

Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst, not an agent, who is to observe an interrogation of an Egyptian man by Moroccans, not Egyptians. He's not supposed to be a hardened agent and so comes off as naive of the interrogation techniques used. This is more believable than if he were to come across as being an "old hat" at it.

The story jumps around a bit and can be confusing, but it also makes you stay focused on whats going on until the end when everything comes together as the puzzle falls into place. The supporting actors did a good job of helping to carry the movie. I found the movie to be powerful and thought provoking.


The reviews for RENDITION generally haven't been favorable, so I waited until it moved to the local discount theatre to see it. The film tells the story of Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an American-Egyptian scientist who is plucked from his international flight and hauled in for interrogation after a strange coincidence links him to a recent terrorist attack in an unnamed North African country. Not as bad as I'd feared, it's an interesting and thought-provoking entry in the "ripped-from-the-headlines" thriller genre.

The film ultimately asks tough questions concerning U.S. methods of prying information from political prisoners: Is crossing the formerly-uncrossed line of (openly) employing torture on suspected terrorists something our country should be doing? Does it yield useful information that helps save lives? If so, at what cost? What sort of monsters do we create when innocent people are taken prisoner and tortured? By sanctioning the use of torture, what sort of monster do we as a country become? It's always disappointing when a film with such provocative material is sloppy with some of the details that make good films great. For example, I'd like to have empathized with Anwar's wife, who spends the entire film trying to track him down, but the only identifiable personality trait she's given is an advanced state of pregnancy. RENDITION also seems to imply that Arab women who don't go along with their fathers' arranged marriages are only asking for trouble, and there's a poorly-conceived scrapbook kept by another of the film's main characters that too conveniently spells out in great detail all the information his love interest just happens to be in urgent need of at that particular moment. I laughed out loud, when the moment should have been filled with dread.

The film features a good central performance by Jake Gyllenhaal and strong (but too brief) appearances by Hollywood veterans Meryl Streep and Alan Arkin, as well as impressive turns by Omar Atwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi and also by actors Moa Khouas, Zineb Oukach and Yigal Naor, all of whom I would much enjoy seeing in future films that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Good luck to them. The five or so stories RENDITION follows are woven together nicely, until the filmmakers insert a slight-but-effective twist that finally alludes to the never-ending cycle of carnage that violent attacks of terror beget.


Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses.