It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.

It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.

To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.

It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.

The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat "obvious", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.

If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.

So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference.


"Alexander Nevsky" marked director Sergei Eisenstein's return to film-making after a period of exile, and what he produced is a bald-faced propaganda film proclaiming Russia's superiority over Germany.

There's very little plot: Russians unite to battle Germans; Russia wins. The film is really an extended montage of mostly battle scenes, mixed in with some moments of German brutality (like a rather shocking scene that shows German soldiers throwing Russian children onto a raging fire). This was Eisenstein's first sound film, and it's clear that he had no idea what to do with the medium. Indeed, this film really looks more like a silent film with some sound added. There are some dialogue scenes, but they sit rather lifelessly on the screen, and the pacing is all off, as if the actors weren't actually on the set together at the same time when they were filming them. Eisenstein mostly uses sound as an excuse to overlay a rousing Prokofiev score over the proceedings, and indeed, that's one of the film's biggest assets.

Say what you will about Eisenstein's ability (or lack of) to direct actors or tell his film in a more narrative format, he certainly knows how to edit images and music together for maximum effect, and "Alexander Nevsky" over all shines through its deficiencies.

Grade: A


Alexander Nevsky is rightfully held up as a cinematic masterpiece. It has however aged very badly. People decide not to mention this and talk about the great battles and the great music. The sound effects may have been good then but apart from the foreboding organ all the sounds are risible. I may be shot by film buffs for this but i'm sure the modern viewer of Alexander Nevsky will agree that the blatant propaganda and the appalling music to detract from the film. I gave this film 10/10 because it is undeniably a master piece. It does have its great bits however. The costumes of the Teutonic knights are superb and the battle scenes are fairly good for the time.It is however a master piece that is showing it's age.


Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring.


When Patricia Newell is attacked after witnessing her cousin's murder,Detective Carrella searches the city for her killer.Identifying the murderer after an intensive manhunt,Patricia is sent to live with relatives in the country.For Carrella the case is closed...or is it?"Blood Relatives" is an overlooked masterpiece.Donald Sutherland plays a cop and it's nice to see Donald Pleasance in a small role as a child molester.The conclusion is pretty disturbing.Still "Blood Relatives" is more of a mystery than a horror film,so fans of gore will be disappointed.A must-see for fans of old-fashioned mystery movies.9 out of 10.


I honestly can't believe that this film isn't more highly rated. Claude Chabrol could be described as something like a French Alfred Hitchcock, and while this film is only the second one of his that I've seen (the first being Le Boucher), I can already see that this guy is something special just on the strength of these two films. The film is a French and Canadian co-production, and takes place in Canada. The cast is made up of British and Canadian stars and the high quality performances bode well with the rest of the film; most of which is high quality also. The film is a murder mystery and begins when a young girl covered in blood is brought into a police station. After being questioned by Inspector Carella, it emerges that the young girl, Patricia, and her sister Muriel were attacked by a man who killed the sister and only just allowed Patricia to flee. However, as the investigation goes on, Patricia goes back to the station to give new evidence, which reveals a far more shocking identity to the murderer.

The performances in this film are excellent. Donald Sutherland is subdued as usual, but he suits the role he's given here very well and I wouldn't hesitate to name his performance in Blood Relatives as one of his very best. The film also features supporting turns from British stars Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings who both give good turns; Pleasance in particular who shows just how great an actor he can be and highlights what a shame it is that he went on to waste himself in Halloween films. The unknown Aude Landry also gives a great performance in her role as Patricia. The movie is very mysterious for the first hour and really keeps the audience hooked. When Inspector Carella discovers Muriel's diary, the film turns into more of a drama in which the girl's last actions are shown; and while this section of the film is not as good as what went before it, it's still interesting and leads into a great twist at the end! Overall, Blood Relatives is a great film that really deserves to be better seen. Le Boucher is a better known effort from Chabrol, but for my money this is at least as good! Highly recommended viewing.


Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well.


Considered by many to be a strangely overlooked Chabrol it seems to me the reason it has been cold shouldered is its sleaze factor. Not as overtly sexy, violent or gory as many films of this period it nevertheless starts rather startlingly and although becoming more measured continues to ooze a rather unpleasant odour. Ms Audran, not here the ice maiden but a drunken mother, Donald Pleasence does a cameo as a child molester, David Hemmings has his eyes on underage sex and the central theme involves the relationship between a brother, sister and niece. No not very nice at all and Chabrol treats it all as if it is very normal (like it might be in some small French village!) instead of Ed McBain's New York City. Had this been treated in a more sensational manner then it would have been a more acceptable but lesser film. Here we really have to choose between the likelihood of various unpleasant options before the final denouement. Very watchable


Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version.


This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put "Peter Pan" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.

As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it.


A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.

To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.

Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.

What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.

Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.

With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation.


My cousins and I have watched this movie ever since we were little. I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but we latched on to this endearing movie and it has become a special part of our family's memories.

I totally and absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who likes good wholesome family movies because that is exactly what this is. The things that the four kids get themselves into is absolutely hilarious to watch. It is an old movie but don't let that fool you. This is one of the best movies out there that shows such strong sibling bond for each other.


It's really too bad that nobody knows about this movie. I think if it were just spruced up a little and if it weren't so low-budget, I think one of the major film companies might have wanted to take it. I first saw this movie when I was 11, and I thought it was so powerful with the many great, yet illegal lengths that Mitchell goes to just to keep his family together. It inspired me then and it amazes me now. If you're lucky enough to find a copy of this movie, don't miss it!


The Commenter before me stated this movie is the worst that was ever forced upon him/her as a child. I have to say though that I loved this movie when was little and I still love it today. The movie has the best running theme of all-family togetherness. Considering the time period the movie was released I thought the movie was acted out well. I only wish I could still find a copy of it somewhere!! Of all the 1980's films I watched as a kid this was on of my favorites. I know I probably watched it at least once a week with my brother and my mom. I would definitely recommend it to anyone I know-or don't know. So if you do find a copy of it I suggest watching it! It's wonderful and heartwarming.


"on our own" is a touching story of four kids who run away from foster home after their mother dies, with only one suitcase, their dog Ralph and $9 they set off in their mums old car in search of their uncle Jack. On the way their car breaks down and they meet Peggy Williams, a schoolteacher on holidays and she offers to help them out. Together she and the children search for uncle Jack but are forced to hide from the authorities that plan to take them back into foster care as they do so. This film tells a story of love, friendship and how important it is to stick with your family as the children venture out on their amazing journey.


Vanaja (2006), written and directed by Rajnesh Domalpalli, is an extraordinary film from South India. Mamatha Bhukya plays 15-year-old Vanaja, who lives in a rural area with her loving but alcoholic father. If she is going to succeed in life, she will have to overcome the liabilities of low caste and poverty.

I went to the film expecting the depiction of an wretched girl who is crushed by society. This isn't what "Vanaja" shows us. The young woman is attractive, intelligent, and ambitious. She won't accept her fate with tears or simple resignation. She wants to succeed, and it's never clear that she won't succeed, despite the odds.

The acting that Mr. Domalpalli draws forth from his cast of amateurs is miraculous. Mamatha Bhukya is outstanding in the title role, and Urmila Dammannagari does an exceptional job as Mrs. Rama Devi, the wealthy landowner who is a formerly famous classical dancer.

In the film Vanaja learns South Indian classical dance, as she did in real life. I couldn't tell how good Vanaja's dancing was by Indian standards, but the many dance scenes were spellbinding. (Don't think Bollywood--this is classical dance. It's also very different from ballet, because in ballet the dancer lifts her heels away from the floor. In Sound Indian dance, the heel is the primary contact point.)

This is a movie that is not to be missed. It will work on DVD, but will be better on a theater screen because the dancing will be shown to better advantage. However, if DVD is your only option, then see it that way. Just be sure to see it.


This is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great film.


Winning 26 out of the 28 awards it was nominated for, there is no doubt that this film will stand as one of the best of 2007. The fact that it was made with non professionals who were trained to act and dance makes it that much more special.

It is not a Bollywood production, but it is about art. A lower caste girl wants to sing and dance. She wants to move up in society, but there is a limit. Everyone cannot be President in India, there is a caste system, and the narrow minds will not allow it to be breached.

Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) quits school at 15 and goes to work for the Landlady (Urmila Dammannagari), who was once an accomplished dancer. After some time working the animals, she is taught to sing and dance. The film is strikingly beautiful with rich color. It is amazing what can be done with $20,000, as this film was a Master's project for the writer director.

The Landlady's son (Karan Singh) returns from America to run for office and is struck by the girl. But, she is lower caste and can only be a vessel for his lust. Things are no better at home as her father drinks and eats and steals her money. She ends up pregnant and has to sell the baby to the Landlady.

In the end, she never rises above her caste, but the story was fascinating and the acting was really good.


Vanaja is a film of superlatives. It has an exceptionally well thought-out cast with Mamatha being the crowning jewel, a superb production and possibly pre-production with Rajnesh at the helm, a fantastic journey of rural Southern India through the eyes of a 15 year old, a remarkable mixture of song and dance, traditional and modern, blended perfectly, and a beautiful backdrop of lush color of the flora and fauna that make up the magnificent experience. What a towering achievement for a debut director!! The casting was absolutely dead-on. I wish India would come out with more of such films. This film will remain as one of my top favorites for my entire life. 9/10.


let's face it, you know what to expect when you tune into a post 1990 Corey Feldman film, there are probably boobs, guns and cars. saying that, there is more to this movie than just naked ladies (i'm sorry to say), cos it's mainly people getting themselves killed in a variety of unusual, and as the name suggests, often 'mystical' ways. I love crappy horror, and i love this film. If you don't, you probably wont. but i think it's worth most people giving it a go, it's not so crappy that it'll ruin your weekend or anything. All in all, if its mindless good fun, a bit of corpse loving, and an 80's childhood superstar your in the mood for, then you've come to the right place. its a cracker!!!!


I don't care if some people voted this movie to be bad. If you want the Truth this is a Very Good Movie! It has every thing a movie should have. You really should Get this one.


Caution-possible spoilers ahead.. Just watched 'Joe' for the second time. The first time was 30+ years ago on an Air Force Base. I was reminded of that by the Air Force overcoat with Tech. Sgt. stripes wore by the boyfriend/dealer; we airmen had quite a laugh the first time that appeared on the screen because that is a 'lifer' rank. Over the years I have carried several other images from the film. Foremost was the absolutely beautiful and vulnerable daughter of the executive. As someone else commented, you could not take you eyes off her. I did not realize until now that this was a 20-year old Susan Sarandon in her first movie. What a loss that she did not do more movies when she looked like that. I also recall the irony of having a counterculture hero like Peter Boyle playing the title role of a right-wing gun nut. Not unlike George C. Scott playing generals in Dr. Strangelove and Patton. And of course the shocking ending made a lasting impression.

30+ years ago it was the most talked about movie that ever played on the base. We thought it was a great film then and I have been reluctant to see it again because I was afraid that it would be as disappointingly dated as Easy Rider. But watching it today I was amazed at how well the film has held up. It is a very strong script with few holes although you have to wonder about the boyfriend immediately getting out of the bathtub when Sarandon gets in with him.

Searching for an explanation of why this film is still so entertaining I have to think it has something to do with the perfect physical casting. Boyle was physically believable as Joe (as others have pointed out his portrayal would inspire the Archie Bunker character a few 'years later). Did Ted Knight model his 'Caddyshack' character-Judge Smails after the Dennis Patrick's advertising executive in 'Joe'? They look alike and sound alike. Patrick was totally believable as the wrapped-too-tight upper middle class executive. And Sarandon's doe-eyed innocent with the Raggety Ann doll still evokes a protective response from all male viewers-perfect casting.

The nude and drug scenes actually hold up (they were very provocative for their day) and are as explicit as anything to be found in 'Thirteen'. About the only thing that dates this film is that the violence is not realistic or graphic. 'Joe' was about the same time as 'The Wild Bunch', and the tone of movie violence had a just begun to change.

Another reason this film holds up is that events in the past couple of years have brought back the relevancy of the theme and context of this film. In the film both types of 'conservatives' are portrayed as full of fear and hate toward the unconventional ways of the counterculture; and filled with envy at their free and hedonistic lifestyle. The counterculture is portrayed as mocking the straight culture; and although paranoid toward conservatives (legitimately so given that this was just a couple months after Kent State) they cannot resist flaunting their lifestyle in an attempt to antagonize. The political landscape is not all that different 30+ years later. I'm not sure conservatives envy young people and liberals as much as 1970, but they fear and hate them more.

An excellent film that surprisingly is as relevant now as it was in the early 1970's.


Wealthy businessman Bill Compton (played by Dennis Patrick) accidentally kills his daughter's hippie boyfriend after an argument. Panic-stricken, he retreats to a bar, and meets Joe Curran (played by Peter Boyle): a loud-mouth, angry, bigot who is bitter over how his beloved country has become. Unintentionally, Bill allows Joe to find out that he just killed a hippie. And this is only the beginning. "Joe" is a classic film of an unlikely friendship. A bond between two men, one of a white-collar background, the other of a blue-collar background. Bill & Joe have one thing in common, they are disgraced over how crazy the world has become. Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle have both given very realistic portrayals of their characters. Director John G. Avidsen with this "pre-Rocky" effort, directs this low-budget gem with the same finesse as a movie with a $100 million budget. The script is loaded with excellent character development and very snappy, realistic dialog. In spite of its strengths this film does have its weaknesses. The script falls asleep roughly 3/4 of the way through, but it wakes up just in time for the jarring climax. This film also features a very early and uninspiring performance by a 24-year old Susan Sarandon as Bill's daughter Melissa, along with her hippie boyfriend Frank, portrayed very blandly by Patrick Mc Dermott. One could only be thankful that he was killed off early in the film. In spite of its few flaws this is one of those forgotten films of the 70's that should not be. Even though "Joe" is very dated to today's standards, the chemistry between Dennis Patrick & Peter Boyle is completely relevant today, and it is the glue that holds the whole film together.


"Joe" is one of those movies where, although you think that it might go along smoothly, ends up hitting you like...I can't come up with an analogy. It showed not only that America's long-standing idea of unity was moot, but also the various aspects within our society. Melissa Compton (Susan Sarandon) is the ultimate flower child, while her father Bill (Dennis Patrick) is a clean-cut executive. One day, Bill accidentally kills Melissa's boyfriend. In the immediate aftermath, Bill gets acquainted with Joe Curran (Peter Boyle), an ultra-right-wing, rabidly racist working stiff. As a result, the two of them end up associating more and more with the hippies, whom Bill finds unpleasant and Joe outright hates. But in the end, everything has dead serious consequences.

True, some parts of the movie are a little bit dated, but it's a good juxtaposition of America's two sides during the Vietnam War. And rest assured, the residual effects of all that will probably never go away.


I was surprised by how emotionally invested I became in this film. Peter Boyle is a tour de force as the working class socially conservative bigot, Joe. I actually sympathized with some of his complaints. Of course he doesn't mention the underlying historical socio-economic reasons for many of his prejudices. The film also provides interesting insight into the rapid change American society was undergoing at this time. Recreational drugs, casual sex, and the challenging of parental authority became in vogue and replaced the more time honored traditions of respect for God, country and seniority. Susan Sarandon fans will be delighted. Joe is her film debut. She also provides viewers with a visual treat near the beginning of the film. Recommended, 8/10.


If Archie Bunker was armed, he may well have been "Joe". However, "All in the Family" would have had a rather short run because the censors would never have allowed it to run along the lines of THIS movie. Joe is a working class guy who is a racist and a bigot, and has a big mouth, especially when he's drunk. One night he meets a man in a bar, Bill, who is having a drink to soothe his frazzled nerves after accidentally killing his daughter's junkie boyfriend and he lets that slip to Joe. What happens is that Bill's daughter was living with the junkie, and she's hauled off to the hospital after an overdose, and he goes by the apartment to collect her things but doesn't expect that he'll actually run into the boyfriend, who comes in fresh from a big drug deal. In the struggle that ensues, the boyfriend is killed accidentally and Bill doesn't want anyone really to know, of course. But he lets it slip to Joe, and then when the newspapers and TV reports come out, Joe sees them, puts 2 and 2 together, and suddenly this man is a hero in his eyes. He hooks up with him later and Bill is of course concerned that Joe is going to blackmail him, but not for money, he wants to hang out with him. Which is, in a way, almost worse. Now, Bill's daughter escapes from the clinic she's in, and slips back home, and accidentally overhears what happened and then is on the run, and most of the rest of the movie consists of Joe & Bill infiltrating "the underground" to try to find her. This builds up to a rather shocking ending, which to me was totally unexpected and ends on just the right note, or wrong note, depending on your point of view. A sort of decent but dim view of life in the early 70's, mostly from a working class bigot's point of view, which makes it not for everyone, but it's not a bad film at all and it's a decent watch. 8 out of 10.


22. JOE (drama, 1970) Joe (Peter Boyle) is a racist factory worker who's known to hate "hippies and ni**ers". He meets Bill, a businessman who has just murdered the lover of his drug addict young daughter Jill (Susan Sarandon). Jill runs away and joins a hippie commune at the outskirts of town. Bill turns to Joe for help. Their search leads them through the seediest parts of town where both men's inner hatred and loath is furthered tested.

Critique: This was director John G. Avildsen's first sleeper-turned smash hit (an amazing run which included: 'Rocky', 'The Karate Kid', 'Split-Image', 'Weekend at Bernie's'). Film is interesting enough in that it served to encapsulate the themes and ideas of the turbulent 60s (Vietnam War, black power, women's lib etc.). It also has a good performance from Peter Boyle as Joe, one of the cinema's first antiheroes. He's always been good at playing creepy, bossy heavies whose abstract ideas are enforced by his intimidating presence (he would play the Frankenstein monster in Mel Brook's spoof Young Frankenstein). He reminds me of a little kid trapped in a big, dumb, awkward body. Film has a weak script (the meeting of Joe and Bill, for instance, is a bit coincidental), but it has a particularly gruesome, post-Taxi Driver ending.

QUOTE: Title Song: "I saw a fella selling junk to children. He gets nervous every time I pass Cause he knows that if I catch him I'm gonna kick his head and kick his fat a$$."


I finally have seen the real reason why Peter Boyle became famous. It wasn't being the monster in "Young Frankenstein" or being cranky Frank Barone on "Everybody Loves Raymond". For younger people who only know him from TV,give this film a try,it makes Frank look like a saint.

"Joe" is Boyle in his finest acting role and as someone mentioned,most likely gave the inspiration for "Archie Bunker" on "All In The Family". I think Boyle even went back to "Joe" a little to play Frank. (I say this because I noticed the basement of both "Joe" & Frank Barone look similar.)

I knew nothing of this movie when I checked it out of the library,I just knew Boyle and Susan Sarandon were featured. Yes,Susan does look great here and for a young actress a very good early role. A young hippie wanna be,who escapes her parents home and lives with,the ultimate lost in a drug induced haze hippie,who also sells as much as he buys.

After a near-fatal over-dose on too many pills,she is hospitalized while her parents go to collect her things,her mother wont go into the smelly,run down apartment but her father does. While Dad gathers up her things,her boyfriend comes home and the two exchange words and then the father does what we will later hear Joe say he'd like to do to a hippie.

Joe is shooting his mouth off about how he hates different cultures/races,hippies and a laundry list of others. When he says,"I'd really like to kill one of them",the father (trying to look like he's kidding)says,"I just did". Joe almost buys it but then takes it as funny.

Later,when the police are at the scene and the story is in the paper,Joe realizes,he wasn't kidding. Instead of nailing the rich guy for money through blackmail,he actually,kind of,does blackmail him. By just wanting him and his wife to "get to know" him and his wife. Long story short their association is awkward but after Sarandon gets wind of what her father has done,the bottom is at risk of falling out.

How this all plays out in the end you'll have to watch for yourself. Although it's over 35 years ago,the ending is something you wont expect. Unless you've seen the film before of course. Again,I recommend it mostly for those who haven't seen it.

10 stars for Boyle not just playing someone completely opposite his nature but for what will show others that he was more than just a TV and movie comedy actor. (END)


I only voted excellent because this film took two snapshots of Americana: one in 1970, and one for every year afterward.

Nothing's really changed.

Joe is actually a jerk, a big stupid slob who's mad at everybody else in the world for his own idiocy. This ain't really a spoiler, but the key to the film is the big, corporate "never does wrong" guy making friends with this semi-troglodyte Joe, and he gets some kind of...validation from his bigotry and stupidity and sense of being wronged.

Yet, few would argue, that the dealer boyfriend did deserve to die. And those kids shouldn't have ripped Joe and Compton off. And Joe and Compton were actually getting into the hash and the young skin until they got ripped off. A simple film in many ways, except that in 1970 New York City was par to a battle zone thanks to Nixon's care, and all of the money going to the war in Vietnam. As I write this (2/25/2007) there is a "very long wait" on Netflix for this film - which makes me happy because I think there are people out there who want to learn. This was a pretty good snapshot - not exact, a bit caricaturist - but actually pretty close to how it was back then. And the scary thing is - things haven't changed that much. Sure, there's no more welfare, but that just means the wage-slavery has won out.

Amazing how millionaires will complain about not making enough money, then complain that $5.15 an hour is too much to pay their people.


WARNING: Reading this entry after watching the movie! Like 'Easy Rider' released a year before, 'Joe' tries to illustrate what happens when the counterculture and mainstream (albeit right-wing) America meet: a violent end ensues. Although this film is for the most part a slow-moving display of traditional "old-fashion" American morals versus the 60's "do-what-feels-good" lifestyle, it is also a commentary on upper-class vs. lower-middle class and their inability to meet in the middle as illustrated when the Comptons meet the Currans. Boyle's Joe represents a generation stuck in the 1940s and 50s where 'Kill a commie for Mommy (or jap or hippie for that matter) is okay so long as it helps and saves America. Joe and wife Mary Jo are clearly the archetypes for Archie Bunker and Dingbat wife, Edith. This movie - which will forever be known for it's violent (but not bloody - no blood is seen at all) ending is uneven however. Joe blasts (verbally) the hippie generation then (literally) lays down with them to infiltrate their numbers to locate Compton's daughter - when clearly he should have been repulsed by the idea but forgoes the separatist idea for the sake of sex. When he is betrayed through thievery (read: trust of the older generation to the newer generation), he lashes out through an unrelenting chain of murder. Perhaps it is due to the Tarantinos of Hollywood that the watcher expects blood-streaming death in the end scene, but the bloodless shootings long for any sort of impact or realism. 'Joe' is not a great movie, but it is an interesting display of class and culture alienation and the animalistic underlying extremes to the generation gap.


After recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open.


Unusual film about a man who befriends his social opposite out of fear of blackmail. Peter Boyle makes this film with his foul mouthed boorish portrayal of a working class stiff "Joe" in love with the past and fearful of the future and worried about the present. The first half hour of the show features the film debut of a young Susan Sarrandon as Melissa Compton, a weak willed rich girl who slums with her loser boyfriend, replete with a full nude scene. Her boyfriend is the film's weak spot, a poorly portrayed drug addict and dealer who meets his demise following Sarrandon's overdose. We meet Boyle's Joe in a bar as he spouts off and rants about minorities, crime, hippies and drugs, and it is easy to see that the later Norman Lear television character of Archie Bunker is based on a cleaned up version of Joe. The comparison even carries over into Joe's wife and personal life and pastimes. Joe insinuates himself into the life of Bill Compton, Melissa's father, and the two make an unlikely pair as they search for Melissa who has run away from drug treatment and back to the drug addicts she calls friends. Their search leads them to an "oar-gee" as Joe calls it, a free love fest fueled by drugs a lot of nudity and surprisingly, uptight Bill Compton and Ultra Conservative Joe both join in. They get robbed and this leads to a violent and murderous ending that foreshadows the stark and chilling ending to Taxi Driver six years later. Joe is a funny film that on the surface at least, is anti violence and anti racist. Yet the film's main character, Joe, becomes the very instrument of the upheaval he fears when he enters and joins in the illegal and unbridled sexual excesses he rants against. So in that respect, the film falls short of being a powerful message and leaves you wondering what the final outcome really was all about.


I recall so many things about seeing this movie back during it's original theatrical release - the post Woodstock afterglow of peace and love, along with the pre-Watergate tension of fear and paranoia. It's hard to believe that it's thirty seven years later, and I can still remember the thoughts going through my head while watching the film with my best friend. Like marveling at Peter Boyle's characterization of the ultimate redneck, sure to typecast him the rest of his career (Oh, how wrong!), and how the counter culture jarred the sensibilities of most of the country. To this day, my buddy and I still use Joe Curran's line from my summary above when faced with a dilemma; curious how a simple line like that can stay with you for decades.

It's curious to read comments about the film from others on this board, particularly the ones stating that the film has a dated quality and how over the top the characters were. Still, if you were around during that time, the picture gives a pretty accurate portrayal of the polar opposites that existed back then, pretty much side by side as the events in the story reveal. If you really want dated, when was the last time you heard the words Macy's and Gimbel's in the same sentence, or a line like Joe's - "Come on, get with the Pepsi generation". For historical perspective, you have that great Nixon poster lingering in one of the background scenes - "Would you buy a used car from this man?" With minor intricacies like those, director John Avildsen captures many of the subtle but ever present hints of how life was four decades ago.

Today's viewing was only the second time I've seen the movie, and I have to admit I don't remember Susan Sarandon in one of the lead roles, but then again, this was her very first picture. The scenes of nudity and free love were something actually quite new and bold at the time, shocking in fact, as film makers began to experiment with their ability to push the envelope of propriety and convention. "Joe" took a major leap in that regard, particularly since it was a 'mainstream' picture.

With the passage of time, the thing that impresses me the most about Peter Boyle was how he overcame the stereotype of Joe Curran to appear in or star in some of my very favorite pieces of work. I mean, how do you go from "Joe" to that hilarious rendition of 'Puttin' on the Ritz' in "Young Frankenstein"? And my absolute favorite episode of 'X-Files' has Boyle as Clyde Bruckman, in both a tender and tragic, funny and serious portrayal that turns the tables on Scully and Mulder more than once. And as a career capper, Frank Barone has to be one of the funniest characters in the history of television. Even repeat episodes in syndication are funny as he-- whenever the elder Barone lets loose with one of his observations. He is one actor that this viewer sorely misses already.


New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.

Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.

What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.

This film needs to be remembered.


Though I saw this movie about 4 years ago long before I started commenting on IMDb, I decided to review it now which is unusual for me since before now I often reviewed something just after seeing it. What can I say? Well, the best performance is that of the late Peter Boyle as the title character who, after finding out about a man's killing the drug-dealing boyfriend of his daughter, wants to bond with him even though he's a Madison Avenue executive who has nothing in common with the very lower-class conservative Joe. In fact, there are plenty of funny scenes of Joe at this guy's party making smart alecky remarks there. Oh, and it should be noted that the actress that plays the daughter who they're looking for after she disappeared from the hospital after overdosing on some drugs is none other than Susan Sarandon making her film debut! This was a pretty hard-hitting movie for the time it was made (late '60s-early '70s) and was compelling work from scripter Norman Wexler (later of Saturday Night Fever) and director John G. Avildsen (later to do Save the Tiger, Rocky, and The Karate Kid). Certainly the ending packs a wallop even today after all these years! Highly recommended for anyone curious about the counterculture of that time. P.S. Among the cultural artifacts seen here are a Raggedy Ann doll, a box of Ritz crackers, a bottle of Heinz ketchup, and, unique for the era, a Nixon poster asking, "Would you buy a used car from this man?"


This is a classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers "the enemy" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the "generation gap" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because "the enemy" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes.


Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.


Joe is the movie about the dark side of the force of the 1960's in America, and Susan Sarandon had nice boobs. This movie scared me so much when I saw it in the theatre that I never liked Peter Boyle until Young Frankenstein and was still quite leery of him even after that comedy. Looking back now from today's experience, this film seems current again in being direct and to the point of half the electorate's approval of John McCain's "Joe The Plumber" typecast and their fear of electing a black man as President of the USA in the coming weeks. A black Prez would be seen as sweet revenge of the "niggers" but bound to again bring fire to many minds if not the streets, this time by Joe enthusiasts. So, the spirit of Joe in the film is resurrected in the campaign of Joe The Plumber! Still, I love to be American and be terrified at both and by the knowledge that they illustrate what ironically Gregory Peck said our civilized law also is: "a living, breathing reality!" God help us.


I really liked the Movie "JOE." It has really become a cult classic among certain age groups.

The Producer of this movie is a personal friend of mine. He is my Stepsons Father-In-Law. He lives in Manhattan's West side, and has a Bungalow. in Southampton, Long Island. His son-in-law live next door to his Bungalow.

Presently, he does not do any Producing, But dabbles in a business with HBO movies.

As a person, Mr. Gil is a real gentleman and I wish he would have continued in the production business of move making.


Peter Boyle was always a great actor and he proved it by his performance as a gun-ho Bigot, making me hate him everytime he used the "N" word, I watched him and his big mouth and wanted to punch his lights out. ( Just think, Peter Boyle was a Monk once) (Now a supporting actor in "Everybody Loves Raymond") Susan Sarandon making her first debut need a bath right away and enjoyed sharing it with someone else in his own dirty water. I noticed a large Raggerty Ann Doll(creator, John Gruelle) was the only thing that Susan could actually trust and love and the doll appeared in quite a few scenes. If you really want to know about the way out 70's with drugs, free love and pipe dreams, then, enjoy the excellent direction of John G. Avildsen ("Rocky and "The Karate Kid") I always thought that Peter Boyle should have been blown away in the end!! This is definitely a cult classic well worth viewing and sharing with others.


A fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm...


Oh man , this movie is amazing, It's very good it's a story about a man who isn't so accepting of Black people, he sits at a bar drinks on his night out and he rants about hippies who are anti-war , and how blacks and hippies don't deserve to get any welfare checks. This movie is very realistic ,because it portrays a guy "Joe" who represented a lot of guys back then, and now too. The story goes like this.... Joe is in a bar and he rubs shoulders with a rich guy who just accidentally killed his daughter's hippie boyfriend. And this rich goes to the bar to rethink what he just did, and while he's doing that, "Joe" is in the bar ranting about hippies and people who are against the war. The rich guy accidentally tells Joe that he killed a hippie ; and obviously joe applauds the rich guy, Cause Joe hates hippies, Amazing movie watch it to see what happens next. I liked this movie , because it was reminiscent of those days in the early 70's, I liked the way movies were shot back then in those days, very good stuff , it's not like today's movies. Basically the movie gives you an inner look into the mind of the lead character "Joe" . I like the theme of the movie ....... about the working man , who's busting his ass trying to make a living


My 2nd favorite film of 1970 (after Five Easy Pieces) was totally dismissed by a lot of idiots, calling in an audience-baiting piece of trash. Peter Boyle, a well-known liberal, is incredible as the hard-assed working stiff who has a few problems with the younger generation. He's a frightening dude, but has a great imagination and is very funny. I was a teenage liberal when this was released, but as horrifying as Joe seemed to me, he also cracked me up! Susan Sarandon, in her first role, is perfect and a mixed-up stone rich fox. The dinner scene in Queens is hilarious and insightful for everybody involved.

This WAS NOT an exploitation film and the script (which was Oscar-nominated) should have won that year. The director just didn't WASTE enough money making it to give it enough credibility in Hollywood. No matter your political pursuasion, then and now, you'll like somebody in this film. A definite 9 out of 10. It's on DVD and video. Check it out!


Imagine that "Dragnet" episode where Friday and Gannon go into a typical 1970 den of hippie inequity, but instead of giving everyone a lecture, they "get some." That's "Joe" in a nutshell.

This film of a working-class bigot and a rich guy who's just killed his girlfriend's drug-dealer boyfriend has dated terribly and most of the supporting acting is stilted, but it's still interesting to watch. Peter Boyle, then about 35, plays Joe (the bigot), and he looks like James Gandolfini. In her film debut, Susan Sarandon plays the doe-eyed daughter, and while she doesn't necessarily hint at her future greatness, you can't take your eyes off her.


This was a rather unnerving look at an ostensibly functional family confronted by their daughter's druggie boyfriend. Father tangles with and ultimately kills druggie boyfriend. Wallowing in guilt he reveals to a drunk redneck what he has done. Things spiral rapidly out of hand before degenerating completely. The ending you dread stalks the viewer throughout, but is still able to startle when it finally arrives.


i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.


Saw this at Sundance one of the first years I attended the festival - blew me away...

It went by much too fast, and I've never been able to find it again. I figured it would show up on a compilation somewhere, but still no joy. My memory's foggy on the details - I just remember being surprised over and over again, and on the edge of my seat.

Anyone reading this have any leads? Online, DVD, beat-up VHS copy - I'd try to make it worth your while...

Over the years, I've probably seen over 200 short films (used to live near Aspen where they have an incredible Shorts Fest in April). This definitely ranks among my favorites, and I hope to see it again!

Many thanks to anyone with leads on how to see it :)


I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.

At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.

Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.


This is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des


"The Beguiled" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with "Play Misty For Me". An alternate title considered for the film was "Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a "Peyton Place" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.

Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.

I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.

Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.

The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.

Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.

Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film "A Patch of Blue" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.

I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles.


.....and it's a good one, too. In fact, this may be one of the best studies of sexual repression ever made. It's extremely well-acted and has some downright chilling moments. An often overlooked film in Clint Eastwood's filmography, and atypical of him, to be sure, but if you're willing to accept him in such an ambiguous role, it's certainly very gripping. (***)


Clever psychosexual drama about a wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood) who seeks refuge in an isolated Confederate school for young women during the Civil War. Slowly, Eastwood begins to seduce every girl in sight, until the tables are turned and he becomes the pursued in an unsettling, gothic-toned finale. Never has a film been so deliciously erotic yet disturbingly macabre at the same time.

This is undoubtedly Eastwood's finest hour (those who tune in for "Dirty Harry" will indeed be surprised), while the rest of the cast gives uniformly superb performances. Try to see the film on video, as television prints usually delete crucial flashback scenes between Geraldine Page and Patrick Culliton.


Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.


This Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood strange and hypnotic drama was left by the wayside in 1971 and what a pity. A fascinating character study with some great women for Squint to deal with. Geraldine Page was one of our supreme actresses and she's perfectly cast. Young Jo Ann Harris is a flirty minx, and Elizabeth Hartman (who died too young) is undeniably repressed.

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = C. Eastwood. Released the same year as DIRTY HARRY, this did no business, beside getting some good reviews. Seek this out unless you're only into "Explosion" films. Very subtle and frightening, this piece will stick with you.


Combining the conventions of both Western and Gothic horror, and often directed as if it were an art movie, this is one of Siegel and Eastwood's best collaborations.

Eastwood plays a Yankee soldier who, after being wounded during the Civil War, takes refuge in an isolated Southern seminary for young women. Shut away from the world, the women project their romantic fantasies on to him, and he responds with callous, male manipulation. But jealousy and resentment raise their heads, and he finds himself in a world of brutal revenge. And boy is the revenge brutal.

Beautifully shot by Bruce Surtees, and carefully paced, "The Beguiled" is a haunting, elegant work that seems to have influenced the troubled sexuality of Eastwood's own "Play Misty for Me" and "Tightrope".

The film is a gripping depiction of a fierce battle of the sexes and oozes a dreamlike mix of horror and sexuality. All the characters are ambiguous, displaying traits of both good and evil, leaving it up to us to choose whom we should root for.

Don Siegel left quite a legacy of fine films behind. Everything from "Invation of the Body Snatchers" to "Dirty Harry". But though his early black and white pictures have aged well, the majority of his colour films seem grainy, dated and badly shot. His gritty "realism" must have seemed fresh and kinetic 40 years ago, but when viewed today, I just don't think they've stood the test of time.

"The Beguiled", however, is in a different league. Mature, ambiguous and starkly shot, it's a shame it isn't more widely known. While evolving technology and technique have rendered the majority of Siegel's tough, masculine action thrillers obsolete, "The Beguiled" still entrances audiences today due to it's surreal atmosphere and unique subject matter.

8.5/10 - Better than the similarly themed "Black Narcissus", this is, in my opinion, Siegel's best film. Part horror, part drama, part sexual odyssey, "The Beguiled" is a surprisingly arty film (especially when considering that Siegel viewed his films to be, quote, 'meaningless'). A large part of the film's artistry is due to Clint Eastwood, who would, from this point onwards, make an effort to choose mature material.


During the brief period between Clint Eastwood's string of spaghetti westerns and his Dirty Harry films, he and director Don Siegel teamed up to make this unusual picture. Eastwood plays an injured Union Army corporal during the Civil War who is taken in by a southern school for girls until he recovers from his wounds. It has been a while since the young women (most of which seem to be teenagers) have had a man on the premises, so they are reluctant to turn him in to the local rebel soldiers. The resulting situations are often humorous, shocking, erotic, or even downright grotesque as Eastwood slowly regains his strength and begins to brood over the establishment.

The basic storyline almost sounds like the makings of a porno film. We have a masculine male suddenly surrounded by young nubile women. Most of them are sexually attracted to him. And he is more than willing to spread the love amongst them. The material never really slips down to the level of "tasteless", however. Eastwood, Siegel, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees are such skilled filmmakers, that the film always retains its dignity.

Eastwood's John McBurney is like no other character he has ever played. McBurney is an amoral, conniving, and lustful charlatan. He knows that most of the women, even the youngest want his bod, and he lets more than one of them have a shot at him. McBurney often uses flattery to butter the women up, then uses his rugged good looks to reel them in. He is like a drunken player at a cocktail party, often hitting on different women even in the same scene! Eventually, his lustful ways cause him great agony and loss in a way you must see for yourselves. This author would not dream of revealing the specific consequences of his actions, but there is little doubt he has them coming.

Eastwood gives a typically great performance. He seems to be having a blast with the role until things turn really ugly, then he turns mean and ugly. Geraldine Page is a treat as the steely B*tch who runs the school. We know she wants McBurney as much as the other girls, but with her checkered past shown to us in flashbacks, we find out that isn't all she's after! Mae Mercer as a slave belonging to the school gives a great performance, too. She obviously knows McBurney is a skunk from the beginning, and she never lets his phony charm bring her guard down. This is a character you will want to know more about after the film is over. She seems to have a greater knowledge of the world than anyone else in the film.

The Beguiled did poorly in its theatrical release. Nobody was quite sure what to make of it, and some of its content no doubt raised a few eyebrows in 1971. For example, in an early scene we see Eastwood romantically kiss a 12-yr-old girl. Is he just trying to keep her quiet when the rebel soldiers get close, or is he really enjoying it? Probably both! A fantasy sequence later on even shows Clint getting it on with not only Page, but her young assistant! Truly some interesting goings on in this one. It's a good thing Eastwood became the star he did, or this one might have been long forgotten.

Highly recommended. 9 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


It took me years to finally catch this gem of a film and it was worth the wait. In nearly all of his films Clint always plays the hero. Be it hero, anti-hero or avenging hero. In this film he is pure villain and he plays it well.

As a wounded union soldier he is brought into a confederate girls school by the students and teachers to heal. Soon after he begins to seduce the ladies no matter their age and some are quite young. He also plays upon their jealousies and pits them against each other. In the end you are never so happy to see Clint die a terrible death.

That is what makes this film such a gem. Clint has never done any other film like it and after seeing this film you wish he had. He plays the role of the villain so well it will make you wonder why he never did any more films like it. It also explains why the film is not seen very often. Most people don't want to see Clint as the villain and with Dirty Harry being released shortly after this film it has become a hidden gem. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan you owe it to yourself to see this film. You might not like what you will see but you won't soon forget it.


It is hard to know what category to put this film in, most films set in this time period of US history are westerns but here instead of the wide open plains of the west the action is almost entirely confined to a claustrophobic girls boarding school in Louisiana.

The film opens with Amy, a young girl, walking though the woods picking mushrooms, as she does so she stumbles upon Corporal John 'McBee' McBurney, a wounded Union soldier, who she takes back to the school. We know that he isn't a particularly nice person when he kisses her on the lips to distract her from alerting a passing Confederate patrol even though she told him she was twelve.

Once back at the school opinions are divided about what should be done with their new guest, some think they should look after him till his wounds are healed while others believe that it is treason not to hand him over to Confederate forces at the first opportunity. The former group prevail and he gradually recovers. As he does so his presence has an effect on all of the girls who haven't had a man on site for a long time, including a young teacher and the head mistress who's previous relationship appears to have been with her own brother. McBee sets about seducing them, emotionally if not physically, this leads to considerable jealousy amongst the girls.

While this film is rated fifteen it is definitely not for younger viewers both for the sexual content, of which little is actually shown but much is implied, and for a very gruelling scene which had me squirming more than any other scene in any film I've seen for quite some time. It is interesting to see Clint Eastwood play against type, instead of being heroic his character is both unpleasant and for most of the time at the mercy of the women around him. The acting is solid throughout, not just from Eastwood but also from all the actresses, including the young Pamelyn Ferdin who played Amy.


Director Don Siegel really impressed me with this film. It is starkly shot, graphic without being visually graphic, well-acted by all concerned, and covers some of the most taboo issues of any day in a workmanlike, almost expected normalcy hitherto not seen in any other film by this reviewer. I didn't know what to expect sitting down to watch this: a civil war movie or some kind of 70's soft-core peddling with Eastwood descending on a school for girls in the South. But really is is neither of those things but rather and examination, exploration, and descent into the soul of men and women - a dark commentary on what is at the core of the civilized. as one reviewer previously noted, none - none - of the characters are likable by the film's end and yet each one is interesting, complex, and enigmatic. Eastwood plays Cpl. McBurney, a Union soldier found by young Pamelyn Ferdin(you'll recognize that voice as soon as you hear it), a girl at a school for manners headed by Geraldine Page amidst the chaos that was the Civil War - particularly in the South. Soon, Page, teacher Elizabeth Hartman, lovely, young seductress Carol, and even Ferdin(Amy)have emotional/sexual ties to Eastwood - each having their own needs and secrets and problems. Eastwood is not a nice man. he plays the girls off of each other always trying to get the sexual advantage. In the unfolding we get some real interesting things revealed from latent lesbianism to incest. The Beguiled, for me, is a masterpiece that far exceeded my expectations on every creative front. This might be(except for Invasion of the Body Snatchers) Siegel's best film. It certainly is one of Eastwood's best REAL performances. page is always so very good and Hartman, Fe5rdin, et al excellent. the Gothic manse set for the school is effectively claustrophobic. Some of the sexual-laced scenes disturbing. And what happens to Eastwood is a leg up on much of the competition for creepy, eerie, demented film.


This super creepy Southern Gothic melodrama stars Clint Eastwood as a wounded Confederate officer in the Civil War who's taken in by a rural girls' school and nursed back to health. A weird clash of genders ensues, with the supposedly "dangerous" male falling prey to a batch of seemingly harmless women, who prove themselves to be every bit as brutal as the men waging war on one another at the battle fronts. This is a classic spider and the fly story, but here there's one lone fly and a whole bunch of spiders.

Geraldine Page plays the head mistress of the school, and she gives a characteristically sensational performance. Page was trained as a theater actress, and it shows in all of her performances. No matter what role she played, she always committed herself 100% to it, and never once let herself drop out of character. So it is here, with this lethal spinster, who takes her sexual repression out on this helpless man. Each of the other girls responds to him in her own particular way as well. The two most prominent are the slutty girl who can't wait to throw throw herself at him, and the virginal one (played by who else but the mannered Elizabeth Hartman?) who acts like she would fall over in a dead faint if someone so much as said the word "penis" to her. The schematic Madonna and the whore storyline would seem heavy-handed if the movie didn't keep you so off-kilter and so completely unsure of what was going to happen next.

The most memorable scene in the film for me occurred when the group of women perform an amputation of Eastwood's leg, which has become infected with gangrene. Again, the spider/fly allusion is clear: they hobble him so that it's that much harder for him to escape their web.

A classic chiller. Not a great film, but a morbidly entertaining one.

Grade: A-


Clint Eastwood plays a wounded Union soldier found by a girl from a Confederate boarding school and he's taken in and nursed back to health instead of turned over to Confederate soldiers. Seems that the women-folk at this place have ulterior motives. Geraldine Paige, the headmistress, justifies not turning him into the Confederacy and even passes him off as her cousin. Of course when the man gets to feeling better he becomes quite the lady's man and is pretty much making the rounds, but when he gets busted he REALLY gets busted, in fact so badly he gets his leg cut off, but it's for his own good, of course, not out of retribution. Things get carried a bit further though when certain women don't get what they want. I haven't seen this for years and it still has a certain creepiness to it that by today's standards is still pretty strange. Not typical Eastwood at all. If you haven't seen this one it's worth seeing. 8 out of 10.


This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.

The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching.


This film was a surprise. The plot synopsis sounds kinky, and stars Clint Eastwood and the great Geraldine Page. I didn't know what to expect. There is that opening scene where the wounded soldier says that age 12 is old enough to kiss and proceeds to give a child a lingering, and very adult, mouth to mouth kiss. The child takes him to the girls boarding school where she lives. He takes advantage of the situation by attempting to seduce the headmistress, played by Page, her assistant and another student. Jealousy, sexual tension, incest, intrigue, and the macabre all meld in this wonderfully original story.

I've read the other comments here and find little to disagree with. However, I wanted to clarify a point made earlier that there are no sympathetic characters in the film. I find that there is one. The attractive female slave successfully resists the soldier's advances in a scene that works well because it touches upon the common history of black women slaves taken advantage of by white men. Even though her strength and lack of illusion are the sum total of her experience, she is what I would consider a sympathetic character. She, more than any of the other women and girls at the school, has a legitimate reason for participating in what happens in the end.


One of eastwood's best movies after he had separated himself from the westerns. which in themselves were good whenever I had a chance to see any of clint's earlier work I would sit in front of the set and watch whatever was on.


Probably this is the best film of Clint Eastwood. Here action is minimal, but with plenty of good acting. A Yankee soldier Eastwood is wounded and taken by the female pupils and teachers of a school in the South, where he is hidden and taken care. Shortly after his recovery all ladies wanted to have fun with him, and some of them succeeded including the director of the school(Geraldine Page). Erotic scenes are coming until the ladies discovered that their "macho" was shared by several of them, so they became angry and poisoned him in a farewell dinner. Geraldine Page, although somewhat old, was able to play a very suggestive role as the director of the school, a woman with more failures than happiness in her life.


I thought that Eastwood's most unusual role was that in The Bridges of Madison County, but that was until I saw The Beguiled. He manages to pull it off, giving a very good performance and so does the rest of the cast. The direction is imaginative given that the film was made in 1971 and had there not been some plot holes - which the director seems to struggle to cover up at times - we would be talking about an excellent film. It remains powerful, nonetheless.

8


This is a good movie, I won't go into any details as the other user comments do a good job of taking care of that. However, I disagree with the statement that this is Eastwood's best work. That is just not a very defendable position based on the volume of strong movies he has directed and starred in. I would like to note that I find it interesting that two of the actresses who played in this movie, Pattye Mattick and Peggy Drier, never again appeared in another film or television show, in spite of giving good performances. My curiosity has me wondering what happened to these two actresses?


I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching.


This film has some rather shocking scenes and subject matter considering it was made in 1971.

Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page, and Elizabeth Hartman do excellent work in the film, as do all the cast members.

Set during the Civil War, the film begins when a wounded Yankee soldier, Johnny, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, is given refuge and help at a girls academy located in the south.

The headmistress of the school, Ms. Farnsworth (Geraldine Page), the one teacher-Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), and a small group of half grown girls have been without a man in their midst for perhaps a little too long.

While their loyalties lay with the Confederacy-- their emotions and physical needs definitely lead them in the opposite direction. Johnny immediately uses his masculine charms to try to win the women over to his side--and keep them from turning him over to the patrollers.

However, feelings previously stoked by incestuous behavior, an adulterous father, a brutal rape, and adolescent inexperience combined with jealousies--turn things upside down with some unexpected consequences for both Johnny and the school's residents.

10 stars


The Beguiled was one of the few early Eastwood films I hadn't seen until I gave the DVD a spin today. And from it's opening sepia-tinged shot to the macabre climax I was utterly enthralled. Too many film-makers these days substitute special effects, fast editing and dizzying camera-work in place of character-driven stories, but Director Don Siegel knew how to get the maximum effect from this relatively simple plot, and the characters are believable and compelling.

The story concerns a ladies finishing school which happens to be situated on the edge of various skirmishes during the American Civil War. The south-supporting ladies find a badly wounded Union soldier (Clint Eastwood); nursing him back to health he begins to manipulate the sexually frustrated women for his own ends.

Geraldine Page is excellent in the role of the headmistress with a secret, and her descent into madness is subtly conveyed. For a film that virtually takes place in a single location it never loses visual interest. There's even a chance that the normal status quo, long abandoned when Eastwood's machinations are uncovered, could return; but the mistresses and pupils descend upon a darker road...

This is a totally different style of film from the same Director's Dirty Harry, made in the same year, and yet they are both equally superb. Eastwood is great playing against his usual stoic anti-hero image, yet there's also some mysterious quality attached to his character. We never really learn much about him prior to his incarceration, and the viewer is free to decide upon his well-shaded persona. Villain or Victim? Whatever you think, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed it.


Let us assume for a moment that you haven't experimented with the psychotropic mushroom and you're wondering about the so called bad experience and just how something like that might play itself out Well go ahead and pop in a fresh copy of The Beguiled. See, with film you have your clean trips (Solaris and anything else directed by Andrei Tarkovsky), whack trips, i.e. the experience-from-which-you-never-recover (Sweet Movie and El Topo), and you're bad organic trips, a category specifically reserved for a film like The Beguiled which is the sort of content those keen writers at the Times who made all the right decisions with their lives and graduated from the Harvard Department of English refer to as "hallucinogenic in tone." By the third act of this Don Siegel directed movie, you may not exactly observe that your two lead-heavy hands have become shrunken and assume all the characteristics of a burrowing insectivorous mammal, nor will you exactly fall under the suspicion that your spine has achieved the same sinuous shape and knotty texture of a pomaceous fruit baring tree incalculable in age, but you will feel something.

In 1970, when this film was filmed, most Americans were looking for an anodyne for their collective pain, a movie like The Graduate perhaps, a lot of world-endism was going on and, of course you had the nightmare break down of war in Vietnam. What you get with The Beguiled, banal drug metaphors aside, is a screenplay adapted from a novel by a guy who at least for the moment wanted to be known as Grimes Grice, and direction from the director who helped bring about the work and career of Sam Peckinpah. In the Beguiled, Donny Siegel, born in 12, Chicago, Il., less than 45 years after The Great Fire is showing his attempt at grappling with all that contemporary cultural madness of the early 1970's in the form of a classical film artifact. The Beguiled is an incredible film and an outstanding contribution to the cinematographic arts in almost every aspect: the shooting, editing, direction and story are all fantastic, and you're not likely to see anything else like it. Undoubtedly, a sinister film, its effects, as I've said, both dizzying and adulterating; frankly it's hard to believe would ever Universal attached its name to this picture, but you are going to see upon viewing some of the sweet, sweet camera moves, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees exploiting every bit of dark myth you harbor in your head about the American Plantation South, conflating beauty with evil in every location shot. Clint Eastwood, needless to say, has never been like this. Old Clint, he moves at instant from coy to livid, his eyes like two Archimedean spirals in medium close up. The rest of the cast is equally exacting and uncanny.

This Beguiled will never make the AFI 100 in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me from positing that it's one of the best American synch sound films ever made. While most people catalogue it as a western, to include the folks at The Western Channel, The Beguiled is a problem because you don't really know what it is: A sort of war movie? A drama? Psychological thriller? Maybe the answer to all those emotionally wrought Noir films starring Kirk Douglas? I actually call this piece a horror film because when my old man, who likes to kick back with the cheap, gratuitous violence projected in entertainments like The Wire, saw that high angle medium long shot of Geraldine Page wrapping a tourniquet around Clint's bloody leg, Pa was pretty quick to suggest we watch something else like the Outback Bowl, right before he absconded to another room. My advice: watch this one, and make sure it is on a very large screen, preferably run on that DPL home theater projector you're contemplating. I would put The Beguiled right on order along with that important consumer purchase, turn the overheads out, throw some cinematic light up on the big blank wall, and try not to lose your grip because just like Norman Bates, "We all go a little mad sometimes," even the beguiled.


During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end.

"Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained.

While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona.

Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song.

A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality.


The Beguiled is a pretty satisfying film for those who are after the things above. For Clint Eastwood's die-hard fans, it will be a disappointment. Although Eastwood does his best here in his so atypical role (except for the fact that his character is a charming womanizer, which he isn't so unacquainted with), the ambiguous nature of his character, which goes from being a sort of fallen hero to a manipulative and insatiable woman eater (to put it that way) will eventually be too much to handle for anyone used to see him play heroes in the best western tradition, morally a bit unclean but still without that dark side. I think he manages to pull this unlikely part off, but those who really steal the show are the two rivalising women, the schoolmistress Geraldine Page and the head of the students, played by Elizabeth Hartman.

We see that there is a potential devil in every man and a potential witch in every woman, especially when it comes to sexuality and sexual desire. Hartman's Edwina is the sweetest, most innocent girl in the world until she becomes infatuated with John McBurney and becomes possessive of him. This is what causes tragedy, as well as the headmistress' secret lust, the forbidden fruit. She carries a great and ugly secret about her incestuous relationship with her brother, whom she clearly idolizes still. The fourth factor in this "unholy" love spiral is the wicked Carol, played by Jo Ann Harris, who lures John away from his crush on Edwina and into her bed.

The whole nature of the story gives this film a sort of Gothic feel, which makes it a pretty rare thing in the Western genre, but a popular thing in the movies of the 70's. A unique achievement by the Siegel/Eastwood team and a movie not for the faint hearted.


The Beguiled is one of those under-seen films in the careers of a director &/or actor that ends up playing better than expected. In the same year that Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel collaborated on Dirty Harry they also worked together on this little psycho-sexual drama set in Civil War era Confederacy country. It's almost a 180 from what 'Harry' had for audiences. Here is a film that is under the radar, and with a low-budget to almost no business when compared with what Dirty Harry pulled in. It is also a story where Eastwood is not surrounded in a world full of dangerous men but women who, despite their first appearances, have darker sides to them. And there's even romance in it in between some of the rougher and more complex scenes. But in this kind of framework to make the film, Siegel therefore actually has a little more freedom to do things with the style of the picture that roams into something more European; I'm reminded here and there of Polanski's work in the 60's. It all works though pretty well even with the initial doubt that these two figures of masculine film-making (Eastwood the obvious and Siegel having made his niche in B-noir and low-budget thrillers) can pull off material that could possibly be made for a Lifetime movie.

It was also captivating and really darkly comic here and there to see Eastwood's performance working off of these girls. He's doing something a little subversive in his performance by still having the sort of Eastwood machismo- if there is such a thing close to his clichéd movie image- by being a step ahead of this little school for young women at times and not at others. To see Eastwood in a performance like this, as with Play Misty for Me (the other Eastwood work of 1971), shows how cool he can act believably with very good actresses. Particularly here are the four main female characters, each of varying ages and each with varying attractions to their 'Yankee' man. While Siegel's work directing all of the actors has its moments in the first half it's really once the story crosses the half-way mark in the dream sequence (less successful than the director could be capable of) that the real juicy scenes start to pick up. A lot of this is the best that Siegel directed dramatically, pushing the psychological and emotional edges of scenes where not expected.

It's a difficult film, all of this praise aside, as it doesn't paint anyone as being too respectable- only the character of Hallie the slave on duty played by Mae Mercer is sort of separated from what transpires between the all-too-curious women and McBurney. Along with this, Eastood here is acting in a role that is and isn't what he's usually seen as during this time of his true formative years in the movies. He's an anti-hero here, which was his trademark of the westerns and other thrillers he was doing at the time. But unlike those films he's not really in a mode where he's 'larger than life', to put it in a way, as he is both deserter and womanizer, deceiver and tricky even in his most charming and affable moments. If it's not one of his best acting jobs, which is hard to really put together considering his catalog, it is one that is worth a look for fans who might want to see another side of him. It's a credit to him, but also to what clicked with his collaborations with Siegel, as they both took chances at this time in Hollywood.


This is a wonderful film taking place during the romantic period of the Civil War. This film is a must see for Eastwood Fans and Eastwood claims this is one of his most favorite films that he did. I couldn't agree more. Watch out! This is a spoiler- Eastwood does die in the end. Eastwood and director Don Siegel rightfully argued that the ending should be unexpected and should be unhappy for a few reasons. They wanted to stick to the book, for one. Secondly, there can't always be a happy ending. Thirdly, this was written during the Vietnam War- they wanted a negative statement to this terrible struggle of war where people were needlessly dying. I agree with all of this. It is a wonderfully shot film and I love most films involving the Civil War. It is more of a portrait of how deceptive women can be- that they can be more dangerous than men, hence the title has much to do with the statement of the film BEGUILED- to be deceived. The song sung by Eastwood at the beginning and the end of the film is another statement against not just the Civil War but the Vietnam War and maybe indirectly the women he comes across during the film. Wonderful story of love and deception and many memorable scenes- NOTE: This film is rated R for no reason. There is hardly any language, it is probably some of the subject matter involving sex- but there is no nudity really. Excellent film- 9/10.


Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.

If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.

Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.

Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".

Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.

Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.


Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the "ladies" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.

"The Beguiled" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say "repressed professors" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.

This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it.