OK....so, by minute 15 in the film, there's still no dialogue.

This film arrived to me in a padded sack from Down Under, with Sharpie encrypted info on the front. I am a programmer from a North American fest, and MOD LOVE was sent thru to me by our chief as a potential starter having preem'd at the far-away Moscow/Karlovy Vary interface.

Straight away I thought "this film is not for us" (no dialogue by minute 15??) but kept watching anyway. Well, well, well. It built and built and built, and half way in I was involved in this film, because, like when you go to the zoo, at first you're reticent, but by the time you get to the dangerous snakes bit, you're totally 'there'.

This film has a dangerousness, not at all like the much hyped WolF Creek, but because it is so totally 'other' in every way shape and form, and seems to weave a web made up of all the fantasies of most independent first-time helmers ie. - gloomy weather, red-neck intrigue, odd splicing, eerie music, and a plot which, though imperfect and basic, has a bit in common with one of the 'great Aussie Movies' ie The Cars That Ate Paris, by Wier. But MODERN LOVE is actually not really a very Aussie movie in the sense of Ocker-ishness and playful self-deprecation that pervades many of that country's films. It works on a more nightmarish realm from the start. No cell-phones, no brand names, no i-pods, no gritty urban middle/class angst - just a dude married to a good-looker, an old Volvo, and a little boy (son) who has weird teeth and chucks stuff around. Oh and it's set in weird sea-side village where people all look slightly 'wrong.' Photographed by Nick Matthews (2:37) and music by Tom Huzenroeder (Ten Canoes) MOD LUV succeeds where many Aust. movies fail - ie it stands up without regard to the "god-forsaken" country that it comes out of. Instead, it revels in a warped but entertaining riddle which the film itself cannot solve - and herein lies the weak link...what on earth does this film have to do with "Modern Love"???? The final minutes of the film seem to give an answer, or at least hints at one....and as I sat and drank a coffee and ate my Hershey's afterwards, all that I could surmise was that this film's helmer, Alex Frayne, will prob have a lot of fun with this one./


I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go onto something else.

This observation has generational implications, as it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful childhood it ultimately enjoyed.

The Generation X attitude to love is, of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received from this epiphany.


This was a nice film. It had a interesting storyline, that was executed pretty well in the later part of the film. The storyline kinda reminded me of The City of God. But this one is done in a more nicer way in comparison. It had what i really loved:a tinge of surrealism. Some pretty interesting cinematography (thru the wooden camera) I'm not sure if it was culturally correct, but it definitely widens you're view of south Africa. The actors were good (for 1st timers, most of them anyway), i especially liked Estelle character, which made this movie pretty enjoyable. What is interesting though, was that it makes you ask about your own life. Are you really doing what you really love? Or do you consent to the norm, the conventionalism around you. Definitely worth a watch.


This was a random rental at the video store. But I was impressed from the start. Wooden Camera is a gem of a 2nd feature by an engaging director. The film captures deeply insightful moments and several often times frustrating and complicated social interactions young interracial friends would experience in a modern post apartheid South Africa. The young actors are quite good and well directed in their approach to the core material and the dialogue is natural and interesting. The film is very rich in visuals providing a frame by frame study of deeper understanding and fulfillment without falling into iconic stereotypes and clichés. The musical score to the film adds body to the film without being obtrusive. After watching it the second time, I tracked down the DVD on amazon and have been happy ever since.


Yes, maybe there are parts of this film which require suspending belief a little but that doesn't take anything away from the film's charm and wonder. It was shown as part of our town's youth film festival and was the organising committee's favourite. Which is not surprising. The subject matter - coming together in a race-torn, though post-apartheid South Africa is highly topical and the treatment of the theme is inspirational. Of course, as the previous comment mentions the film does have its shortcomings, but the realism of the setting and the way the director treats his subject matter belies these shortcomings. I saw this with my wife and we returned the same evening with the children. A film to watch, meditate, discuss and act upon.


I enjoyed very much the movie wooden camera. I think it's a little bit influenced by the Brazilian movie "City of God", but maybe this parallelism between the two tracks possible to follow (crime and art) in social neighborhood are a reality.

I think the films made by Madiba are really beautiful. I don't think it's unreal that he shoot such good films, because there's a lot of artists that don't have any type of education and can be really genius.

I enjoyed very much the soundtrack. It's adjusted to the pictures.

See the movie...it's good to show how can be a life in a social neighborhood.


This film is amazing, while not perfect by Hollywood standards it encompasses a gentle look at the wide divide between rich and poor, black and white that is true in many parts of the world. It handles the audience with kid gloves while delivering a truthful look at societal problems. The children are beautiful, take special note of the young man who plays Sipho. The friendships that develop are universally true, anyone can relate to the choices these young people have to make. The influence of adults is interesting - it appears to be taken from real life experiences as there are snip-its of conversations and interactions-much like a child would remember experiencing. I would highly recommend this film.


One should not be too critical about the director's second feature.

I really like the camera work of Madiba. As Mr. Shawn pointed out, he had a unique way of looking at things.

However, howcome a 14 year old boy shoot such beautiful images? Remember he has not got any education of any sort. I don't think english is the common tongue in Cape Town ghettos. Worse still, Madiba looks even smaller than his supposed age of 14.

Any way, if you overcome above-mentioned peculiarities, you can watch the film and still enjoy it because of nice camera work.


It is by far the most definitive film on the police force which I have seen. Although not directed by Ram Gopal Varma, it has all the elements of an RGV film. Dead straight dialogues, blunt treatment of the subject, brilliant direction, and superb performances (even by those with little job to do in the movie). The chemistry between Nana and the Don, even if they are professional rivals, is amazing. And so are the small events like an insider not giving information to Imtiaz even while he is being bashed up in the locker, but only to Nana when he is out. The change in working conditions with the change of the senior is dealt wonderfully. The first half keeps one absolutely engrossed, moving like a documentary with Nana acting like a mentor to Jatin explaining to him the intricacies and philosophy of the work.

Overall one of the most brilliant films on cops in Indian cinema. Definitely not to be missed.


I still remember watching Satya for the first time. I was completely blown away. Here was a movie that was very different so from the other Gangster films that I had seen. So realistic, so Mumbaiyya and so believable. Despite "Company" (which was a very good effort) and "Vaastav" (more focused on the journey of the protagonist) which came close, no underworld movie could ever live up to Satya.

When I watched Ab Tak 56 for the first time, I said to myself "Indian Cops have their own 'Satya' now". The quote by Nietzsche in the beginning itself tells you that this is no ordinary film. What strikes you about the "encounter" at the start of the film is the relaxed manner in which it is carried out. There is a cold and scary feel to it cos you realize that it is part of their routine.

Ab Tak 56 is not the story of an honest cop or a corrupt cop but of a cop who is ready to do what it takes to get rid of the criminals when all lawful means are exhausted. With simple shots and camera angles, director Shimit Amin manages to capture the essence of the characters and gives a realistic and rough feel to the movie. Editing seems non-existent and hence effective. The music is also impressive and haunting and stays with you long after you've left the movie hall.

But for me, what really takes the cake are the dialogues and the superlative acting from each and every character. Sandeep Srivastava has done a brilliant job as the dialogue writer. If I start listing my favourite dialogues, I'm afraid I'll end up re-writing the entire script of the movie.

The movie boasts of some stellar performances. Yashpal Sharma is detestable as Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Siddiqui and so is Jeeva as Joint Commissioner Suchak. Revathi, Hrishita Bhatt, Mohan Agashe and Kunal Vijaykar have small roles which they play to perfection. Nakul Vaid as the rookie Jatin Shukla was a revelation. The scene where he has to hesitantly shoot the wounded gangster  Oh My God! He learns under the tutelage of Sadhu Aghashe and firmly believes in him.

Prasad Purandhare as Zameer Zafar is impressive. His conversations with Sadhu are real jewels of dialogue writing. Never before in Indian cinema has any film brought out such a beautiful relation between a cop and a gangster.

Not that I have not been a fan of Nana Patekar before this film but this film pushed me from a fan to a devotee. Nana as Inspector Sadhu Agashe gives the performance of a lifetime and one of the best I've ever seen in Hindi cinema. From the way he talks to his expressions, from the way he taps his cigarette to the way sips his tea  it's almost as if Nana can do no wrong. He is at his best in each and every scene especially when he's teaching Jatin about how the police force functions. His cool and composed manner of doing things is scary at times. His dialogue delivery and body language had me convinced that he is one of the finest actors in the country. It's a shame that he did not win any popular awards for this one.

Last but in no way the least, Shimit Amin does a brilliant job of bringing all this talent together and exploiting them to the fullest to come up with a modern masterpiece of Indian cinema. In an industry that is sickeningly accustomed to lifting stories from here and there, Amin takes an original script and brings it to life with a beautiful treatment. I just hope that he continues the great work and doesn't give in to Bollywood-isation! If he can do that, I'm sure he'll be a force to reckon with in the coming years.


Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.

"Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).

But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.

Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.

The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick.


I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year


I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila.


No music. No stupid masala. A reasonably realistic portrayal of the police system in India and based on a real "encounter" specialist in India, Daya Nayak. That is Ab Tak 56 (56 symbolises how many criminals the lead "Sadhu Agashe" has killed" - well you already know that bit)Brilliance exudes Nan Patekar in the role as a relaxed and calculating Indian cop. THe one liners are just hilarious. The plot though slightly predictable on review, is intriguing all the same. Another one of the films from Ram Gopal Vermas The Factory. Movies which are either decent or really good, Ab Tak CHappan meanders close to very good. But yet remains one of the Top 70 films released from India, commercial and artsy included.

What is great is the story telling is relaxed and showcases finally (in an Indian flick) how the police network works. The cast is really damn good but seriously the one liners are funny as hell (though i dont know if the subtitled version will appear as funny) The producers are trying for a Cannes release, which is interesting. Made by debut director Shamit Aman (i think thats his name).

Again 55 y.o. Nana Patekar is brilliant away from his silly shouting roles of the past, just shows what a good director can do with a good actor. Really good stuff. If you are interested in Indian movies and are disgusted by the nonsense some of our guys dish out then this is definitely a relief.

Again Patekar is the guy who happilly carries the movie on his shoulders and epitomises the style of the movie- relaxed, funny, intelligent and calculating. Good dialoges, good acting, nice direction all in all Great stuff. Recommendations: Gangaajal, Ram Gopal Verma's Company (both Indian flicks)


Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on. I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for the refreshingly "non-Yash Raj" Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there.


This is by far one of the best films that India has ever made. Following are the plus points of the film...

Wonderful direction, cinematography and editing, the editing is very smooth and the timing of changeovers is excellent.

Even though the film shows the life of Mumbai Policemen and their hardships, it never gets boring or sympathetic.

Mind-blowing acting by lead actor Nana Patekar. One can surely hope that he gets nominated for the Best actor for the academy awards.

Controlled violence. The violence is controlled and the film doesn't become a bloody mess.

No stupid songs as in usual Indian movies.


A really realistic, sensible movie by Ramgopal Verma . No stupidity like songs as in other Hindi movies. Class acting by Nana Patekar.

Much similarities to real 'encounters'.


Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai, India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics.

I was surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making.


Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.

It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.

The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.

For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.

Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).

All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.

There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.

But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.

Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.

The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.

The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.

That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already".


It would seem a given, but if a viewer forgets context, he risks missing an opportunity of enjoyment.

It is easy to carp, from the lofty heights of the 21st century, at styles and prices of the Great Depression years; but the intelligent viewer will remember that magic word, "context," and better understand and, thus, enjoy "Accidents Will Happen."

Among the actors, Ronald Reagan again showed himself a good-looking and personable guy, and again gave a right-on performance.

A reviewer earlier said Gloria Blondell played the nasty wife, but that was wrong: She plays the concession-stand clerk who has a crush on the Reagan character, Eric Gregg, but keeps hands off as long as he is married.

Gloria was cute. Not as lushly beautiful as her sister, Joan, she was still attractive and a good actress. Perhaps her looking somewhat like Joan was a detriment to having a more successful career, and it is certainly our loss.

Sheila Bromley was Mrs. Gregg, and played it well.

Other actors included Dick Purcell, and the great Earl Dwire got to play something besides a villainous cowboy.

Again, most of the players never attained the "household-name" status many of them deserved, but they by gosh gave good performances here, in a story that is still current.


Over the years I seemed to have missed this picture of Ronald Reagan, and due to his recent passing to the big screen in heaven, it was shown on TV recently. This is a great low budget B&W film of the late 1930's, however, it is very interesting to see how criminals used their talents to steal money from insurance companies with false claims during this particular time frame. I was surprised at the role Ronald Reagan,(Eric Gregg),"The Killer's,'64, played in this picture, along with a great veteran film star, Sheila Bromley,(Nona Gregg),"Nightmare Circus",'73, who was a great supporting actor. It was a great film that showed Ronald Reagan as a very young man reaching for the stars in his career in Hollywood at the time. God Bless HIM !


I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.

Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.

It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is "flying wine maker" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.

If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.

(8/10)


I saw this at the London Film Festival last night, apparently the shorter version. James McNally's summary of the content of the film is very good. Nossiter very deftly blends his investigation of the wine business into wider concerns about globalisation, homogenisation, the effect of the mass media, the power of capital and the need for diversity.

The film is shot on hand-held DV which some might find offputting, but which does enable Nossiter to catch people off guard on a number of occasions which probably would not have been possible using more conventional equipment.

Despite the sprawling feel of the film, the editing is very sharp, not only giving us a parade of the world's dogs, but also undercutting a number of interviewees' comments with somewhat contradictory visual images, and giving others sufficient rope to hang themselves. To a degree this evoked Michael Moore's recent work (although Nossiter operates in a more subtle way), but probably the roots of the film go back to Marcel Ophuls' "The Sorrow and the Pity", both in the way the film is constructed and in the emergence of 'salt of the earth' French peasants as the stars. De Montille pere et fils were present at the LFF screening and answered questions afterwards. We do indeed all need a little disorder - bravo Hubert!

Overall an excellent film with implications that go way beyond the world of wine into the way we construct ourselves as people, and organise our world.


Business vs. personal conviction. Profit vs. art.

As with any documentary that pits the capitalist large corporations against the small producer, the viewer will invariably have to take the side of one or the other based on their own believes. This is as much a documentary of the new standardized way of doing things that globalization is bringing us, against the old traditional ways where character and the art of making things matters almost more than getting the product sold.

If you have to remember one thing from this movie, it is that the masses can no longer decide by themselves, they just follow the taste of one or a couple of critics that tend to equalize and standardize taste in the same way as MacDonalds used to do for the fast bite (something Parker himself admits to in the film against a backdrop of a Burger King sign). "It is all about image" against content as another interviewee says. That is the easy way, the standardized way. Easier than taking the time for a nice wine to mature, easier than to forge your own taste by trying and trying yet over again. Controlled branded taste is easier.

There is a glitter of hope when even some of our cousins across the ocean agree that a few people are "levelling" the taste of wines to maximize the profits and ensure a maximum of it gets sold to the "grey masses". Individuality and difference is sacrificed for the extra buck. It is nice to see that not everything or everyone is giving in to standardization, even across the ocean.

As in many other areas of today's world, dominance of a few and reduced freedom of choice impacts us all... let everyone make up their mind and decide what to go for. Too much standardization kills the mind and taste; difference brings innovation and healthy competition and will allow for choice - and not just vacuum-packed "more of the same". Standardization sells easily and a lot, and brings everyone to the same level - the lower one.

On this, I am going to open up a nice bottle and wish you a hearthy "sante".


I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed. First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect.

The themes raised in the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the wine industry as they really are, avoiding a cliché "Good against Evil". This could be the main difference between "Mondovino" and Michael Moore's documentaries; Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers.

I watched this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities.


A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray.


Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell.

The movie shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big, personal and global, character and formula.

The real stars of the people for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and themselves.

It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and editing, but it's worth it.

Highly recommended.


It's not really about wine. No, Nossiter's real targets are those who would streamline and assimilate the peculiarities of local (wine) production for business purposes. To this end he has made an excellent, objective film. Spirited, bumptious, emotional and flawed independent wine producers are juxtaposed with media-finessed, anodynesprech Amercians and auld-Europeans: the art of wine-making against market-driven, laboratorised product manufacture. It's an open show that doesn't lead conclusion.

Nossiter's film is occasionally infuriating to watch - cameras are neither concealed, nor steadicam, by any means. There are also plenty of captions as well as subtitles to wade through, often too short a time on screen.

However it does outdo Michael Moore at the game Moore can't play anyway. The characters speak for - and therefore condemn - themselves. Well worth a viewing 7/10


mondovino is a moving and rewarding documentary. in the world of wine there is a huge different between the big winery and the small one. it's not just about size of of your vineyard but also the amount of money and power you have. if you have enough money to place ads in the wine spectator and hire a so called "wine except" then it doesn't matter the size of your estate. also in business world of today wine often has to mass marketed and suited to people's taste. what is means many times wine filtered of it's origin. mondovino shows the commercial side of wine in that of mega producer Robert mondavi, and Michael Rolland the wine expert who shapes wine to the taste of today's critics like Robert parker who is also in the film. now these men are not evil or wrong for they have done a great deal of good for wine. but they have power on a grand scale. as we all know power corrupts. mondovino also shows small wine makers such as Aime Guilbert of the languedoc and Hubert de montille of volnay in burgundy. these wine makers are not starving wine makers but they know like all great wine makers that it's about where the grapes are from. the best example of this is explained not by a wine maker but by a Haitian man working for Neal rosenthal the wine importer. the area the grapes are grown the terroir that matters, that a guiding hand that knows this makes important real wine.


Our reviewer from Toronto told you what you need to know about this film (except note that it needs editing-the hand held technique gets really old, really fast). I saw this film last night in Menerbes, France-we are in the Luberon Valley, which is covered with vineyards and of course wine makers. They were all there in the Salle de Polyvalente for the showing-crammed in. Polite, patient, genial. Although my French is testy, I got the gist of the film but noted that the audience loved the "old" terror growers interviewed-esp. the one from a communist village in Languedoc. He got a lot of laughs. This is unusual in France-laughing aloud. There is no question which side of the terror-globalization war they are on! SM


First, I loved the documentary. It represents a new school history/theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues.

I'll get the camera and dogs out of the way first. I hate the Blair Witch quality of the camera, but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. In fact, I agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access.

Dogs: Warning, I have a doctoral degree in literature which I do NOT use as a profession, so some of my training may seep in: The dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human's great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. The dogs might reflect their owners, as one reviewer suggested. But they also serve as a stand-in for the workers we see in the film. While this might hint at the Marxist problem raised by one reviewer, I think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. No Mondovi's in Italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (Yikes! I am a Marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway!) It is a remarkable bait and switch. The dogs are family, the workers are family. But, in the end, the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). While you may disagree with the politics, the artistry of the analogy, coupled with the more overt politics of the film, are wonderful.

Had only Faulkner (I am from Alabama) had the power of film beyond the Hollywood market, what interesting tales would have been told.


This Christmas gift arrived courtesy of TCM. We had never seen the film, even though we have seen most of the films of Barbara Stanwyck. This comedy made us laugh so much, that at times, we had to restrain ourselves, in order to hear the dialog.

This is a movie that should be seen by people suffering from stressful situations, especially around Christmas. It would certainly lift one's spirits by just letting go. The movie would make a perfect gift in the form of a DVD, or a VHS tape.

"Christmas in Connecticut" was directed with great panache by Peter Godfrey, based on a story by Aileen Hamilton.

The best thing in the movie is the felicitous pairing of two of the most popular stars of that era: Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan. Barbara Stanwyck always played strong willed women, obviously, this was a change of pace for her. In this film, as well as "Lady Eve", Ms. Stanwyck displays a knack for comedy. She and Mr. Morgan, who played in a lot of musical comedies, make a winning combination.

There are no weak performances in the film. Sydney Greenstreet, an actor notorious for playing 'heavies', is a delight to watch as the rich, and fat, Alexander Yardley, the man who owned a media empire and who knew a good thing when he saw it. Reginald Gardiner, an accomplished English actor, adds luster to the stellar cast behind the two principals.

S. Z. Sakall, is another source of continuous mirth; he plays the Hungarian chef Felix,who has a hard time with his own version of the English language. Also, Una O'Connor makes a perfect Norah, the housekeeper in the Sloan perfect Connecticut farm.

In reading other comments in this forum, it's sad to learn that the glorious black and white cinematography is not appreciated by some people. After all, color was not widely used in the 40s, and most of the classic movies have to be seen in its original format because, what would be accomplished in 'coloring' them?

This film should be a requirement for anyone looking to spend almost two hours of uninterrupted fun at Christmas time because total merriment is assured. Watch it with an open mind and heart an maybe you'd like to see "Christmas in Connecticut" every year.


I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie.

The fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas events unfold.

Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to watch.

It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but leaves you feeling glad that you saw it.

I can't wait for it to become available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy it.


From the perspective of the hectic, contemporary world in which we live, the so called `good old days' always seem so much more serene and innocent; an idyllic era gone by of which we have only memories and shadows that linger on the silver screen, as with `Christmas In Connecticut,' a warm and endearing film directed by Peter Godfrey. Barbara Stanwyck stars as Elizabeth Lane, a popular `Martha Stewart' type magazine columnist who writes about life on her beloved farm in Connecticut, always with the latest recipe at the center of the story. One of her biggest fans is Alexander Yardley, played by Sidney Greenstreet, the publisher of the magazine for which she writes. Yardley has never visited her farm, and in response to an idea expressed to him in a letter from a nurse, Mary (Joyce Compton), he decides to spend an old fashioned Christmas with Elizabeth, her husband and child and, as a special guest, a certain Mr. Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor just recovered from spending fifteen days at sea on a raft after his ship was torpedoed. Elizabeth of course cannot refuse her boss, but there are problems; not the least of which is the fact that she has no farm and writes her column from the comfort of a high-rise in the city. It makes for a precarious situation for her as well as her editor, Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne), as the one thing Mr. Yardley demands from his employees is total honesty. What follows is a charming and delightfully romantic comedy that transports the audience back to a seemingly more simple time and place, to share a Christmas Past where a warm hearth, good food and kindness prevail.

Barbara Stanwyck absolutely sparkles as Elizabeth, with a smile and presence warmer than anything the grandest hearth could provide, and totally convincing as a city girl entirely out of her element on the farm. Morgan also fares well as the somewhat naive sailor, whose trust in his fellow man is admirable. Even with the deceptions being played out around him, he's the kind of guy you know will somehow land on his feet, and in the end it's Elizabeth you really feel for. One of the true delights of this film, however, is Sidney Greenstreet. His Yardley has a gruff exterior, but beneath you know without a doubt that this is a man with a heart as big as Texas. It's a straightforward, honest portrayal, and it's a joy to watch him work; the most memorable scenes in the movie belong to him.

The supporting cast includes Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), the terrific Una O'Connor (Norah), Frank Jenks (Sinkewicz) and Dick Elliott (Judge Crothers). A feel-good movie that plays especially well during the Christmas Season (though it would work any time of the year), `Christmas In Connecticut' is a memorable film that never takes itself too seriously, is thoroughly uplifting and will leave you with a warm spot in your heart and a sense of peace that makes the world seem like a good place to be. It's a true classic, and one you do not want to miss. I rate this one 10/10.


At the time that this movie was made most housewives knew exactly who Barbara Stanwick was parodying.Today only some women over 50 probably remember Gladys Taber,whose column "Butternut Wisdom" ran in Family Circle Magazine from before World War II until the 1970's.She lived on Stillmeadow Farm in Conecticut,and her columns were collected into a number of books,Stillmeadow Seasons, Stillmeadow Daybook, etc. The lines that Barbara Stanwick recites as she types them for her column are quite typical of the ones that began a typical Gladys Taber column.Besides cooking and country living,she got rather nostalgic and philosophical at times.She talked a lot about her favorite dogs, mostly cocker spaniels.You might say that Martha Stewart is the Gladys Tabor of today.

Christmas is Connecticut may not be any cinematic masterpiece,but it is pleasant,lighthearted entertainment,soothing to the stressed out mind,and that is good enough


Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, "Meet John Doe" aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.

Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.

S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper.


It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years later, I'd say it was a remake.

Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart.

Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit with the public.

Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner.

So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through.

Christmas in Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the Hungarian restaurant owner/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them. Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way.

Most people remember this film as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to burlesque his own image and he made the most of it.

In a biography of Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set and the cast responded accordingly.

Now if only someone had been filming those numbers.


Make sure you make this delightful comedy part of your holiday season! If you admire Dennis Morgan or Barbara Stanwyck, this film is a fun one to watch. They really work well together as you would see in this movie. The whole cast was very entertaining. Since I'm a Dennis Morgan fan, this film was a real treat! But...everyone can enjoy it! Recommended!


It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.

The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect "Lishka" (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.

If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.

A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.

Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere!


Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr. Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander Yardley in "Christmas In Connecticut" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap tycoon in "The Hucksters" is a close second). Despite some problems with the screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season.

Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in "American Housekeeping" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates. Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him.

As the film begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the "actual" home of Stanwyck and himself and "their baby".

Of course, aside from putting off Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough for the season to be worth watching in December.


This film is one of my favorite Christmas classics. Sure, it's fluff, it's not "relevant", but when did movies being simply entertaining and fun become a bad thing? No, this movie is definitely "A Good Thing" as Martha Stewart(appropriately)would say! Barbara Stanwyck is so appealing in this film and Dennis Morgan perfectly compliments her. Both of them have charm and warmth to spare. They are assisted by a crew of those incredible character actors who seem to have disappeared since the 40's and 50's--Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z.(Cuddles)Sakall, Reginald Gardiner and Una O'Connor among them. Where are characters like this today? Not one role could have been better cast. Bette Davis thankfully refused this role as beneath her and she was right to refuse it. She would have attempted to steam roll over everyone and everything around her and completely destroyed the film. Stanwyck was a strong actress, but had the wisdom to play this lightly. She has seldom been more appealing and is pitch perfect. Morgan is the essence of the nice guy. Because his part is the least splashy there is a tendency to overlook his skill. Just the fact that he could hold his own surrounded by such distinct character actors is an accomplishment in itself, but he too is absolutely perfect as Jefferson Jones. Skip the ill advised(and pointless)1992 remake and watch this bright, sparkling holiday gift!


Personally, I don't like a lot of b/w movies, but there's something magical about this movie.

The movie starts with Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck). "Liz" writes a magazine column about how she's the 'Martha Stewart' of Connecticut. Of course, she's lying. This becomes a problem when her publisher, Mr Yardley, asks her to play host to a NAVY sailor over Christmas. In addition, Mr Yardley, who's going to be alone for Christmas, invites himself up to the farm for the Christmas party. From there, things just go crazy.

Since the movie is set on a New England farm, the movie has a warm holiday feeling. Plus, the characters are hilarious. Mr. Yardley is always shouting orders, and Liz's friend Felix is always yelling 'Catastroph!' when things go wrong. Finally, the movie ends the way a Christmas movie should end; a jolly fat man laughs and shouts "What a Christmas!"

In short, no matter what age you are, you will love this movie.


Barbara Stanwyck is a sheer delight in this wartime comedy, about a sailor invited to spend Christmas with a popular magazine writer's family, at her farm in Connecticut. The problem is she has no husband, baby, or farm, as she writes about in her column, and she can't even cook; her wonderful recipes being provided for her by her good friend " Uncle" Felix, owner of a Hungarian restaurant in New York City.

Things get even more complicated when her strict publisher boss invites himself along for Christmas. A scheme is hastily planned, with her stuffy fiancé providing an actual Connecticut farm, neighbors providing a borrowed baby, and a quick wedding planned when the publisher isn't looking. But when the handsome young sailor arrives on Christmas Eve, romantic complications ensue, as the supposedly married author falls like a ton of bricks for the nice guy Navy man and vice versa.

This is a charming, warm film that deftly balances humor with sentiment and is a wonderful showcase for Barbara Stanwyck to display her considerable comedic talent, aided by such marvelous character actors as Sydney Greenstreet, Una O'Connor, S.Z.Sakall, and many others. A Christmas night dance at the town hall is a toe tapping delight to see, and the unexpectedly sweet and feminine side of Stanwyck is a wonderful surprise, for viewers who have seen her mainly as tough, bitchy women in femme fatale roles. Truly a wonderful film that has stood the test of time.


I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed "Cuddles" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime!


This is a wonderful old fashioned Christmas favorite, which I try to catch on TV every year if I can. It revolves around a Martha Stewart like journalist named Elizabeth Lane, charmingly portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck. However, in contrast to Martha, this lady is a phony with no domestic skills whatsoever. The other cast members effectively complete the story, and include Dennis Morgan (Jefferson Jones), Reginald Gardiner (John Sloan), and Sydney Greenstreet (Alexander Yardley).

Elizabeth Lane is a journalist who writes food articles, portraying herself as a happily married country homemaker with children. In reality, she is a single woman living in a New York City apartment and cannot boil an egg. Her recipes are borrowed from her Hungarian chef friend, Felix. Elizabeth gets away with her deception until the publisher of her magazine, Alexander Yardley, decides he wants a nice old fashioned country Christmas, and invites himself to visit her, bringing with him a returning war hero, Jefferson Jones, a sailor who had been shipwrecked. Yardley demands total honesty of his employees. To get out of her predicament and save her deception based career, Elizabeth borrows the Connecticut country home of her longtime architect suitor, John Sloan, a dull, fussy chap who has long sought marriage. She also borrows a neighbour's baby (actually, several) to pass off as her own and her 'husband' Sloan's.

Of course this scenario makes for much merriment. It's a screwball comedy and a charming romance, with the added attraction of a Christmas atmosphere. Whenever I think of this movie, I picture the snowflakes falling, the tree beautifully decorated, the fire roaring in the hearth, the turkey roasting, and Christmas cookies baking.

Why did Hollywood feel compelled to do a remake? I understand there is a 1992 version, directed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and starring Dyan Cannon, Kris Kristofferson, and Tony Curtis. I have not seen this modern adaptation nor do I wish to. This old favorite is perfect just the way it is and a holiday 'must see' along with It's a Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, and of course all the versions of A Christmas Carol.


Though it's a Christmas movie, "Christmas in Connecticut" could have been done any time of year, as it's the story of a soldier who spends what is to be an idyllic time with a Martha Stewart type. That's what he thinks. In reality, the lady in question, portrayed by Barbara Stanwyck, has a popular magazine column about life on a farm with her husband and baby. She has no farm, no husband, and no baby, nor are the many recipes she publishes hers. They belong to the restaurant owner nearby. When her no-nonsense editor, Sydney Greenstreet, insists that she entertain soldier Dennis Morgan, she enlists the aid of her boyfriend to use his farm, and she transports herself and the restaurateur there. There's even a baby...well, actually, there's more than one. Chaos ensues, and the charade becomes increasingly difficult to play out, especially when Stanwyck falls in love with Morgan.

This is such a wonderful movie, and even if you're gravely depressed, "Christmas in Connecticut" can lift you right out of it. Barbara Stanwyck is wonderful as the career woman turned homemaker. Despite not being as flashy as Crawford or Davis, she was nevertheless able to do what any role called for - she could be cheap, elegant, warm, nasty, cold, and/or sexy and she makes it look easy. On top of that, she is always attractive and alluring. Dennis Morgan is a handsome and charming solider; as an added bonus, he gets to use his Irish tenor. Fiancé Reginald Gardner is all business, and you can tell he's not quite right for Stanwyck. S.Z. Sakall as the fake uncle/real chef is hilarious, especially as he prays Stanwyck can flip a pancake before an audience.

I can imagine the impact this delightful film had at the tail end of World War II. It must have been a real beacon for the better times to come.


I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it.

Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be.

This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance


I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list. A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a gem to be watched every Christmas.


Stanwyck and Morgan are perfectly cast in what is, in many ways, a modern equivalent of Dickens' Christmas Carol in its sensibility. The success of the film depends on the casting of Sydney Greenstreet as the Alexander Yardley character. Yardley is the modern equivalent of Dickens' Scrooge in the way he exercizes control over his employees -- until the Christmas spirit overtakes him. The role is a 'walk in the park' for Greenstreet who had been one of the stage's great Falstaffs when he was part of the Lunts' company. Greenstreet had only entered films five years earlier when, at age 61, he was featured in what was to become a film classic, the first and best film John Huston ever directed: 'The Maltese Falcon'. 'Cuddles' Sakall was probably never better in his traditional role as the embodiment of middle European gemutlicheit. The attractive set used throughout most of the film is an eye-pleasing gem.


"Christmas in Connecticut" is an absolute gem, and a must-see for Christmas! Elizabeth Lane, a precursor to Martha Stewart, is a magazine columnist and the ne plus ultra of homemakers--the perfect wife, mother, and domestic goddess. Only thing is, she is none of these things--a total phony. Unfortunately for her, she is about to be found out. Her publisher, Mr. Alexander Yardley (a brilliant comic turn by Sydney Greenstreet) gets the bright idea of inviting a famous war hero to Elizabeth's "perfect farm" for the Christmas holiday. Only thing, there is no farm, "perfect" or otherwise. The comedy involves how Elizabeth is to keep her real identity under wraps so she will not lose her job. Elizabeth's colleague, John, happens to have a farm in Connecticut, so that solves that problem. However, he wants to marry Liz, but she does not want to marry him. He offers her marriage, though he knows she doesn't feel the same way about him that he does about her. He makes the offer anyway, and assures her that he is willing to wait. And here Barbara Stanwyck, as Liz, delivers one of the most devastating put-downs I have ever heard. With perfect innocence, she replies: "Could you wait that long?" OUCH! In addition, the scenes between Una O'Conner and S.Z. Sakall are hilarious. They don't seem to like one another (though one suspects they really do). They are rivals in the household, and S.Z. Sakall's mangled English is equaled by Nora's strangled pronunciation of his name ("Mr. Basternook"). "My name is FELIX!" It is amazing how Christmas-y these black and white films are. Great character work by all involved. Don't miss this one!


"Christmas In Connecticut" is a gem of a Christmas movie classic. While lesser known than some others -- it is nonetheless a delightful way to spend an evening at holiday time. I watch it every year.

Barbara Stanwyck is perfectly cast as, Elizabeth Lane, the single, career girl. Way before it was popular, Stanwyck embodies the single girl on the rise. Her NYC apartment, and her friendly "uncle" restaurateur around the corner typify the single girl in the city existence. She can't cook yet she writes a homemaking column for a magazine!

Dennis Morgan is also perfectly cast as our wartime hero, Jefferson Jones, who wants to meet the amazing Elizabeth Lane. After being lost at sea, all he wants is to spend Christmas in a "real" home. Which sets up the delightful, madcap story that evolves. It is fun from beginning to end. We should all have an Uncle Felix too!


This is a delightful, they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore kind of film. Well performed by everyone and peopled with interesting character actors. An intelligent, witty script acted with the right blend of broad comedy and understated humor. Holds up for repeated (annual?) viewings.

**WARNING** the re-make of this film with the same name, directed by Arnold Whatwashethinking, is an unbearable mess - painful to watch - without a scintilla of the charm and wit of the original.


Add this little gem to your list of holiday regulars. It is

sweet, funny, and endearing


This film reminds me very much of the later Rock Hudson film MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT--about a fishing writer who has NEVER fished and is forced into entering a fishing tournament. In this case, Barbara Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-like writer who can't cook and doesn't really have the perfect family she describes in her articles--in fact, she has no family at all. Well, like Rock, she is maneuvered into performing--in this case, creating a huge holiday dinner while vacationing in the countryside. Since there is no family, she takes home a veteran and a few friends and tried desperately NOT to "let the cat out of the bag" that she can't do any of the things she is known for doing. A cute little comedy and a welcome film to the annual holiday film lineup.


A magazine columnist who writes about life on her farm house when in fact she lives in a NY apartment must come up with a plan when she learns that her publisher and a war hero will spend Christmas with her. After a slow start, it turns into an entertaining little screwball comedy, thanks to a fine cast. In a big departure from her previous role as a femme fatale in "Double Indemnity," Stanwyck displays a nice comedic flair. Morgan is smooth as the affable war hero while Greenstreet is well cast as the publisher. However, Sakall steals the film as a chef trying to master the English language while speaking with an almost incomprehensible European accent.


I've discovered this movie accidentally and it was really a nice surprise. A Christmas Classic,it's also one of the fine comedies of the 40s. The story line is simple : Elisabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) makes out her living by writing culinary columns for a magazine. At Christmas time, her boss, Alexander Yardley (Sydney Greenstreet) asks her to invite a young weakened sailor in the Connecticut farm she write about. The only problem is : She hasn't got any farm and she can't cook. To get out of the jam, Elisabeth agrees to marry a wealthy friend (Reginald Gardiner,who has a farm) and flies for Connecticut with her wonderful cook Uncle Felix.

There's a fine direction by Peter Godfrey and the cast is really wonderful : Stanwyck has never been better as this witty and yet romantic woman. Greenstreet, Gardiner and Sakall make hilarious and human supporting characters. The only weak point is the leading man, Dennis Morgan. He starts well but as the movie goes on, becomes really a bore. One almost feels sorry for Elisabeht Lane to ends up with him rather than with Gary Cooper or David Niven who both would have been more suitable for the part. Anyway, this is a joyful Christmas time movie with a refreshing score and I advice it to everyone who likes to spend funny and sweet Holidays...in Connecticut.


Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.

It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.

This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around.


I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!!


While it's not "perfect", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on. This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster, and my children grew up with it, too! "The baby swallowed the watch" was always my son's favorite line.

Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great songs, too.

I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the remake (blah).


I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.


This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard to believe no one can make it available.


Has anyone found a way to purchase copies of this series yet? I can see that a lot of people have inquired but I can't tell if any of them have been successful. It's hard to believe that a series this good cannot be viewed by people today, especially one based on real issues faced by real people during what were both tense and exciting times in our country. How can this be true and what can we do to change it? As an aside I agree with all the comments other writers have made about this series on this web site. This is an excellent story about events that everyone should be aware of and know something about today. Lots of us saw this series when we were in college or around that time anyway. Now we want to share it with our children ... but we can't? If that is true what would some good written materials be that would relay the same information?


...a true geek-girl's dream: high tech, high drama, smart guys, steamy sex, and large explosions. (VERY large explosions.) Sam Waterston is so natural in the role of Oppenheimer that tapes of the REAL Oppenheimer sound odd: apparently, he had a voice similar to Ronald Reagan! The triumph and tragedy of Oppenheimer is one of the 20th century's most stirring dramas, and this movie stands as a model of what docu-drama ought to be: the facts are allowed to speak for themselves, while the fictional parts are used to amplify and fill in the record, not to call attention to themselves. An interesting fact: some of the technical details used had only recently been declassified, and so are of special interest. A must-see!


I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received the following reply:

From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject: Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net

Dear Kate,

I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA, and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries 'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the need for a certificate).

I don't know which company is distributing it, but keep your eyes peeled!

Kind regards,

Emily +++++++++++++++++

hooray!

I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing this.

Kate Killebrew

kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply. If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in the US. You can also enter "Oppenheimer (1980)" on amazon.com, and find a box to check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released.

Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net

Here's the reply from the BBC:

Dear Kate

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Oppenheimer'.

I was interested to read that you would like a copy of this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the BBC:

Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane London W12 0TT

May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Elaine Hunter BBC Information ______________________________________

-----Original Message-----

{Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production "Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book/script by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't find it on video anywhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/


I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and, of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set. Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original "Roots."


Absolutely the best thing I have ever seen on TV. It was both entertaining and informative. The reason I found this site is an attempt to find out how I can again see it.

In the light of present understanding of history we have to sympathize with Gen. Leslie Groves who was responsible for the nuts and bolts of running the Manhattan Project. Most certainly he was not as paranoid about security as most have thought in the past.

The casting for the real life people portrayed was outstanding. It was the first time that I noticed Sam Waterston as an actor. Except for height he looked very much like Robert Oppenheimer.

The early scene in which Oppenheimer is leading a class of graduate students was especially intriguing to me.


I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!


I can't remember the series, I believe it may have been "American Masters", but it was broadcast on PBS around 1980. Most people have some knowledge of the development of the A bomb, and those that have little, or none, probably think it is a pretty dry subject. Anyone who has viewed this 7 part series does not feel that way. You get to know the turmoil in Oppenhemiers mind, and how the development changed his life forever. You understand the tragic figure he became, and why. With 7 episodes you get to know the major players, and the intrigue and backstabbing. I have contacted PBS about the chance of obtaining a video, or DVD, but have never received a response. Too bad, I would love to see it again.


I, too, found "Oppenheimer" to be a brilliant series and one of the finest offerings ever on American PBS. David Suchet was particularly effective as Edward Teller, as I recall, and the overall conception was spectacularly good. The only reason that the series doesn't rate a full 10/10 is for the low-budget production values in some areas. Actual content is absolutely first-rate in my recollection.

The Oppenheimer miniseries will be released in the UK on July 31st! It will be a Region 2/PAL set, but it would seem that a Region 1/NTSC set should be soon in the offing.

If you have a universal player in the US, you can order the series right now from Amazon UK.

http://tinyurl.com/znyyq

Huzzah!!


President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.

Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, "Oppenheimer", that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.

The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - "Star Wars") and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.

Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.

(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series "The Ascent of Man" and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen".)


'Oppenheimer' with Sam Waterston in the title role and with David Suchet as Evard Teller is an example of the docudrama at its very finest. Well written, well acted by actors who bear a believable resemblance to their historical characters, highly informative, and very entertaining. The set designs and costumes capture the feel of the US during World War 2, and the plotting and dialog make the viewer feel as if he were really present at Los Alamos and caught up in the excitement of the Manhattan Project. The only downside is that this is a British production, and some of the actors lack skill in affecting a convincing American accent. (The skill of current day Australian & Irish actors taking on non-native dialects is amazing.) The storyline is fully consistent with Richard Rhodes' definitive history of the development of the atomic bomb. Sadly, the mini-series was shown only a couple of times on PBS at the beginning of the 1980s and then apparently vanished into oblivion.

'Oppenheimer' compares favorably to the more recent 'Fat Man & Little Boy' feature film with Paul Newman as Leslie Groves (the chronically overweight and rather homely General would be thoroughly flattered) and Dwight Schultz (alumnus of TV's 'A-Team') as Oppenheimer. As a mini-series, 'Oppenheimer' is around 4x as long as the Newman feature, but uses the all of the additional time completely to its advantage.


Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for "Glory Enough for All", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was "Danger UXB". A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.

Pete


Insanely well crafted mini-series.

I recall seeing most of it twice when shown on American Playhouse on PBS. Was heavily promoted at the time. I believe it might have been one of the very early mini-series showing on PBS outside of the Masterpiece Theater series.

The full length production was shown I believe only once during its first broadcast. Was 6-8 hours total. This length was edited down somewhat to 6 hours. Cut some interesting, but slow scenes.

I am very much hoping that the folks holding its current rights do follow through and restore a complete, not edited version to DVD. Not worth creating a VHS version at this point.

Would fit in very well in the mini-series or dramatic history genre.


>>> Great News there is a BBC DVD release scheduled for 31st July 2006,UK - there is also a scheduled release in States - don't know the date - can't wait ! ! <<<<

>>>> below is my original comment <<<<<

I agree with all the other reviewers - it is simply staggering that one of the greatest TV dramas ever has never been released on DVD

The story line is gripping - the acting is outstanding and the character development is enthralling !

Over here in the UK we have quite a history of getting TV drama series and films out onto DVD through popular campaigns

It's very hard to see why the rights owners do not go into a DVD production ? I'm going to e:mail one of the leading players in this grass roots movement and see what happens. Who did the production ? was it BBC ? RW


Like an earlier commentor, I saw it in 1980 and have never been able to shake the memory of the gripping story, splendid acting, and dramatic musical score. It certainly contains some of Sam Waterston's finest work. He and the writers depict Oppenheimer not simply as an unjustly victimized hero -- which he was -- but also as naive, fond of alcohol, and snobbish, a rounded portrait instead of a stereotype.


Just as a reminder to anyone just now reading the comments on this excellent BBC mini-series, published in 1981, it was not available on DVD until the last few years. Since then, it has become available, but initially only in the British format (for which I bought an 'international' DVD player, which you have to hack--illegally, I suspect, to see it), but the series is now available through amazon.com--3 discs-- for between $19-21, to be viewed on DVD in the US format, no hacking. There were 41 reviews, average 5 stars. This mini-series is one of the very best on Oppenheimer, or the Manhattan Project, or virtually anything produced by the BBC.


There is a great danger when you watch a film that had had such a profound affect on you the first time around , that 20 years later , it wont hold the same magic as it did before. I must admit i wasnt expecting it to be as good as i remembered but a was pleasently suprised. P'tang Yang Kipperbang is still as fantastic as i remember it when i was a 12 year old .This film has a certain type of brilliance that not many films possess. It is engrossing , it is briliantly acted and best of all it makes me feel like a kid again and there isnt many things that can do that. John Albasiny and Abigail Cruttenden's rolls in this film are 1st class and i had forgotten how good they were until now. I urge any parent of teenagers to sit them down and watch this and see if it has the same affect on them as it did on me. P'TANG YANG KIPPERBANG EEHHH! 10 out of 10.


Postwar England, the dawn of the "atomic age". Yet, the worries of a young schoolboy yearning to experience his first "kiss" cannot be derailed by something as inconsequential as THE BOMB. This was a delightful if not educational look at young love from the vantage point of an adolescent male and his world of the

1940's. Free of political correctness and preachy messages, this film exposes the viewer to the world that only the mind (and

hormones) of a young teenager can create. Wonderful subplots

maintain character interest ala "Gregory's Girl", and plenty

of well blocked shots help keep up the imagery of this era. This is a very good story for anyone, young or old, who has

ever been in love, or ever wanted to be. Does he ever get his wish? Watch it and see.


An untidy man, known as Bill, lives in a small dreary flat, with a poster of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, and his typewriter for company. Only the man can't think of anything to write. He wanders around the streets following people, just to see where they go. Maybe this will give him some inspiration to write. He begins to follow a well dressed man holding a bag. He follows him for a few days. While in a cafe, the well dressed man sits down at a table on the opposite side of Bill, and inquires why Bill is following him. The well dressed man says his name is Cobb. Cobb then surprisingly informs Bill that he is a burglar, and even starts to take Bill with him into houses to steal things; although Cobb insists he doesn't go into other people's homes to just steal. He says he likes to let people know he has been there, and interrupted the things they take for granted. He puts knickers from another burglary into a man's trousers, for example.

The film is told in flashbacks at times too. The director used this technique in greater abundance in his recent feature Memento. Bill eventually decides to cut his hair and dress in a suit, on the advice of Cobb. He meets a Blonde lady in a club, who used to date the owner, a bald man, who is very dangerous, she says. We see a scene where a hammer is used by the bald man's hence men on a man's fingers in the Blonde lady's flat. These are some of the many pieces of the puzzle that the director shows us, and they will all fit into place when we arrive at the surprising conclusion.


Given Christopher Nolan's string of successful films, it's a no brainer for me to want to check out his filmography watch his debut feature, which is shot in black and white back in England, running less than 70 minutes long, done with little budget, but containing all the hallmarks that has made him a master filmmaker and storyteller.

Though short, the film is no less gripping with its meandering plot that will leave you guessing, because the premise doesn't even scratch the surface of this tale, which is pretty amazing considering the depth in the narrative's structure and characterization. As told, we follow a writer wannabe called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) who starts a habitual obsession with following random people he fancies on the streets in a voyeuristic manner, which at first could be conceived as research, before he starts to make up his own rules, and break them.

He meets up with charismatic Cobb (Alex Haw) who turns out to be a robber with peculiar sensibilities and modus operandi, and soon finds himself hooked with hanging out with him as they go about breaking and entering and speculating about their victim's livelihood, as does the pursuit of a femme fatale blond (Lucy Russell), a mobster's moll who rejects his every advance.

Told in a non-linear fashion which comes with scenes that don't quite add up in the beginning, this sets the film up for multiple viewings as you study just how Nolan sustains that suspense and intrigue with you as the audience expecting and wanting more, which gets duly delivered. There are enough twists here which spins the film into a dizzying crescendo, where loose ends begin to come together, and the brilliance of the stellar story start to shine through.

It's also amazing how, as a first feature shot on the cheap, that something that clever and sophisticated can be conceived from his own experience in being burgled, with Nolan involved in every stage of production, from writing to shooting, producing and directing, having worked on the project for a year since shoots can only happen on weekends. I guess here's an example of a successful filmmaker's humble roots, which should serve as inspiration and spur new filmmakers out there. Now I'll patiently wait for Christopher Nolan's Inception due out later this year, whose trailer is already such a tease.