Stephen Hawking has one of the greatest minds, or if that's too simplistic to coin for him one of the most curious and daring, that also happens to be trapped in a body crippled by a disease that leaves him in a wheelchair and a computer to communicate. Perhaps I didn't know enough about Hawking going in (I always knew him as 'that guy speaking like a computer who knows a lot about like, the universe and stuff, you know') that he is British, that he was a rather normal kid, and, perhaps most remarkably, the disease that could have possibly left him dead at 21 put him in the position of putting his life in focus.

According to Errol Morris's equally curious and coolly, visually dazzling portrait in A Brief History of Time, Hawking was already brilliant, in spurts (when other Oxford students were faced with daunting algebraic equations, he answered more than three times the amount in an hour's time), but when faced with challenges, mostly from other theories by other scientists, he bounced back with his own. Beneath some of the complex scientific talk- and if you got any less than a B- in astronomy, like me, you'll need to keep your ears especially perked up in explanations of time's possible infinity or the peculiarities of the black hole- there's a human being who just wants to enjoy his goose on his birthday.

Morris captures Hawking just right for those who can't get enough of his theories on how particles may be going in and out of a black hole, or if there is even a creator or not depending on how much one takes into account Einstein and time. But he also captures the back-story on the man and his condition, which creates this as something much more interesting than if Morris had done one or the other. Too much talk about the cosmos would make one's head hurt, and too much about his personal life and one might wonder what all the fuss is about this bloke who's book of the film's title was on bestseller lists for over five years.

Almost in spite of his appearance, Hawking defines what it is to be a conscious entity in a universe which, he observes, he won't be apart of if and when the universe goes kaput another 10 billion years from now. Through it all, in A Brief History of Time, we get a glimpse of a genius and his humility (not to mention his colleagues and family's' ten cents here and there) through an unfathomably hypothetical and mathematical thought process of the universe.


An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas.

A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).

Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon!


Subject Matter: Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Stephen Hawking

Soundtrack: Phillip Glass

Have I died and gone to Heaven?

You will be enraptured.


Johnny Crawford is great in this movie of a troubled teen coming of age in a generation that was in the middle of a cultural and spiritual upheaval. Billy Graham does a good job of portraying life in this sweet, sometimes corny, but all the way sincere flick. He gives us a look at not only the social scene but gives good, solid advice that holds true today about morals, decisions, the generation gap, teen dating, (some of the statistics that are given in this movie are astounding. They sound like today's stats). Just to see Billy in his younger days is worth seeing. It's an awesome movie. It made me realize that human nature does not change, even though hair, fashion and language may change, humans are still struggling with the same issues they have been struggling with for thousands of years.


The theme song often goes through my head after all these years. I was never much of a TV watcher, probably because I was just entering my busy teen years when my family bought our first set in 1948 and it never became part of my life. But from the first episode of Lawman I was hooked, and it is the only TV show I've ever scheduled my week around.

Intelligent, believable, well-written and well-acted, and John Russell is still to me the most beautiful man I ever saw. (Peter Brown was no dog, either :o)

I agree that it is one of the most underrated TV series of all time. I hope I can find some episodes for my grandchildren to watch.


At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman.

Russell kept law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young deputy Peter Brown.

Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal Troop was around.

The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of children when Lawman was in first run.

Sadly Peggie Castle developed substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful woman.

Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the adult television western. It was one of the best.


It is a shame that this series hasn't been remastered and produced on video by Warner or some other professional movie house.

Copies of most episodes are available, but are usually of poor quality, being copies of copies of copies.

As I understand it, 92 episodes were produced during its run, but only 15 are noted here.

Some of the series writers, such as Richard Matheson, went on to become noted authors.

Excellent series, well written, well staged and well produced.

Michael Weldon,

Udon Thani, Thailand


William Haines sparks this tale of a brash cadet who thinks West Point will really be something now that he has arrived. Terrific goony comic performance by Haines was his trademark--one that made him a top box office star from 1928-1932 and one of MGM's biggest stars. Joan Crawford and William Bakewell are fine too. And although this storyline may seem trite now, this was a huge hit, putting Haines and Crawford in a college football (a national craze during the 20s) story. After Haines blows off his big mouth one time too often and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets, he turns in a wonderful performance as he swallows his pride and gets into the big game against Navy. Even with a broken arm, he wins the game for Army and regains his place at West Point. It's easy to see from this film and Show People (with the always underrated Marion Davies) why Billy Haines was a huge star of the time. He needs and deserves to be remembered!


It's a mystery to me as to why I haven't caught up to this masterful 50s caper film  turned brooding noir until now, but I'm certainly glad to report that it didn't disappoint. I haven't seen any of Jules Dassin's American films for several years but based on this I'll probably be going back and re-watching "Brute Force" and "Night and the City" quite soon.

Jean Servais, a name unknown to me but a face rather familiar in its world-weariness and coldness, has recently completed a lengthy stay in prison and as is the way in these films (hey, there wouldn't be a story otherwise) isn't coping well with the straight life. An opportunity presents itself: an easy multi-million-dollar jewel heist that can be done at night with no fear of discovery by a few men. The taut filming of the robbery, half an hour of total silence, is what people most remember about the film of course, and indeed it's pretty remarkable; but I liked the half-completed location of the final shootout, once the robbery has gone sour thanks to the big mouth of one of the thieves; the excellent portrayal gritty sides of Paris in stark black and white; and Servais' channeling of both Eddie Constantine and Humphrey Bogart in his spare but brutal performance.

Perhaps it's a bit too sentimental in the end, but this is one of those classics that really does live up to its reputation just as pure entertainment even if what it has to say about the human condition isn't exactly deep or thought-provoking; George Auric's at turns modernist, romantic, and jazzy score is another highlight.


You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir.


There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone!


American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for the cash in typical "crime never pays" tragedy fashion.

The "rififi" in the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and the full title, "Du rififi chez les hommes" means roughly "Some naughty in the house of men", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a laugh) when she predicts "All of you are just going to kill each other." The characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so much.


This 1955 heist film follows Tony le Stephanois, recently released from prison for theft, as he undertakes the robbery of his life. He teams up with his old heist buddies and they bring in an expert safe-cracker, Cesar from Milan (played by Jules Dassin, who also directed. He only directed because he had been blacklisted as a communist in the U.S. and couldn't work in Hollywood.) The brilliance of this film is the 1/2 hour during the robbery. During all this time, there is no dialogue and no music, only the muted sounds of digging through the floor or drilling the safe. This increases the suspense and draws you in. They get away with several hundred million francs worth of jewels, but a jewel offered to a dancer by Cesar brings their haul to the attention of a trio of brutal brothers. They set out to get the stash for themselves and bring misfortune in their wake. Great heist/gangster movie, but I prefer J.-P. Melville's films in this genre.

This movie is like some lemonade I had last night. I had gone to a Caribbean restaurant and the lemonade was made with sugar cane juice instead of sugar. It also had a lot of ice and was heavy on the lemons, leaving it fairly sour (which I like). The sugar cane juice imparted a subtle, slightly more mellow taste to it than actual sugar, and the ice made sure it was cold and refreshing as I sucked it down. 7.5/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies


To start with, I have done some further research on the film. Firslty, Jules Dassin directed and acted in this extremely imaginative and different film noir crime film. Secondly, This was a very low budget film, created in the Rennaissance of the prime moment of film noir. Thirdly, the jewelers where the robbery was attempted is an actual jewelers. The producers of Rififi asked them to film their, surprisingly, (I quote Jules Dassin in a recent interview on the subject, "surprisingly, for some not very obvious reason, they were delighted at the idea of a crime film being set in their shop).

It's impeccable characters and plot fit in so beautifully with their surroundings. To add on to my praise I will say this; some might say that this was a typical Hollywood film, on the contrary, this set the base for the regular plot of a Hollywood crime film.

Laslty, I would like to say that I support this fresh idea of a film where not only one side wins, and that side doesn't always have to be the good one. For once, I can say that a film is not predictable! Ten stars!


What a gas of a movie! "Film Noir" has always been one of my favorite genres, but this one stands apart from the rest. Only "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past", "Murder My Sweet", and "The Killers" can come close to this caper classic. I know these four American films I mentioned are not caper movies per se, but rather detective stories with complicated story lines, which still exude a "noirean", gritty quality about them, similar to "Rififi".

What is different here is the way Jules Dassin sets into motion the total ambiance of the film, not only in the gritty realism of the principals, but also in the usage of the streets of Paris as a subliminal character and co-conspirator unto itself! The movie centers around "le Stephanois", a dark, moody and complicated ex-con getting pulled into one last shot at the hefty payoff. Even though he is an unsmiling and hard-nosed tough guy, one still senses in him a yearning for some kind of redemption by extricating himself from the demons of his past (hey, he saved little Toni!). Dassin picked the right guy (Jean Servais) for that role.

That aside, the rest of the story development kind of falls into place as we journey through the famous "silent" caper scene to the the eventual demise of the principal "perps". Only their women survive, except for Ida, Mario's honey. They seemed to best understand the underlying futility of it all!


"Rififi" is a terrific heist movie, and one from which subsequent heist films have drawn ever since. Jules Dassin had a feel for the seedy underworld in which these thieves live---you will not find here the Hollywood glamour of "Ocean's Eleven." The robbers in "Rififi" don't rob for the thrill, and they're not playing a game. They rob to survive, to pay for their children's upbringing, to prove to themselves and others that they still have something to offer the world. The much-lauded heist scene is a nail biter, filmed in virtual silence. I did have the feeling that the plot went on a bit longer than it needed to, but the high-speed race to deliver the child to his mother that ends the film is classic.

Be warned---this movie is very bleak. But it's also very good.

Grade: A-


Rififi is a great film that is overlooked. It's a crime drama where a man gets out of jail and plans another job. It's an over used story but this one is different from the others. They round up the usual suspects for the job. This film takes a look at how the family gets torn apart as time goes on. The actual heist scene is one of the best I have ever seen. Instead of a suspenseful soundtrack the director decided to go with silence, around thirty minutes of silence. This fits the mood perfectly and is often copied these days. Of course things get out of hand and people die and it ends in a great ending that builds up in suspense.

So if you're looking for a great film noir that not a lot of people talk about this is a great pick up.


The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to see recent films, such as "Oceans Eleven (remake)", reviewed in such high regard-especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is.

Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer.


Run, don't walk, to rent this movie. It is re-released on an excellent DVD version. It is primo acting/directing/cinematography in the world of suspense/film noir. Tribute this to the blacklisted American director Jules Dassin, who also plays the Italian safe-cracker. See it!


Fantastic movie! One of the best film noir movies ever made. Bad guys, bad girls, a jewel heist, a twisted morality, a kidnapping, everything is here. Jean Servais has a face that would make Bogart proud and the rest of the cast is is full of character actors who seem to to know they're onto something good. Get some popcorn and have a great time.


Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.

One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.

You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well.


With the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous criminals.

They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure.

The special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting.

I have not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian.


Many experienced and excellent actors mixed together in an ongoing plot of an untold part of world war II on the eastern front. Characters well portrayed and unforgettable. One episode leaves you wishing for the next. Pay attention to the closing credits were the thousands of Shtrafbat battalions are listed. An untold story involving hundreds of thousands of individuals. Sometimes brutal, sometimes romantic, always filled with real people and dialog. Produced with excellent sets and camera work. Heroes and villains, criminals and priests, patriots and traitors. Portrait of people struggling to survive and overcome a most terrible time. I wish to buy a copy for my own collection so to be able to enjoy the series repeatedly.


Shtrafbat is the story only Russians could tell about the Second World War. The largest front of the whole conflict has been, ironically, the least appearing subject on the silver screen after the war. While the Western Allies war-effort has been pictured in almost every possible detail and manner, the East has been left out or the job has been left to only some old propaganda movies of little else than historical footage value.

There is no chance that Shtrafbat could compete with Band of Brothers in every detail but neither you want to look at the screen with examining petty visual effects in mind. That the soldiers are Russians is enough big reason to forgive the less eye-captivating battle scenes and you can concentrate on the story that is the most interesting. So much different was the war in the Eastern front, and the nature of the Russian army, that you might wish people to produce more dramatizations from the other fronts, and of armies.

Shtrafbat is no way perfect, but it has some rare specialties that augment the overall rating. It tends to crush myths people have about the Second World War, the true heroes were Russian people and not their leaders who sent them to missions where they could only perish. Another great myth bust is that it presents the enemy, who does not pick up his gun, as an equal human being - an advancement that has been difficult to try in many acclaimed films as well. Shtrafbat shows how the war in the eastern front was a war of survival and how the clash of the -isms grinds people into dust.


Shtrafbat - Penal Battalion is a moving, and mostly honest, look at the lives and deaths of Soviet soldiers who were sentenced to wash away their crimes with blood during World War Two. One can almost call it the Russian equivalent of highly acclaimed "Band of Brothers" miniseries.

Formed in July of 1942 on the eve of Battle of Stalingrad, the penal battalions were considered expendable units and suffered horrible casualties (sometimes as high as 90%). Prisoners of GULAG (political prison/concentration camps), deserters, soldiers who were captured by Germans but managed to escape, soldiers accused of breaching protocol, were all given a chance to join the Shtrafbat and prove that there were not "Traitors of the Motherland" with their lives. Those who sustained injuries and those who died in battle were considered rehabilitated and were reinstated in the eyes of the law.

This miniseries features a look at one such Shtrafbat, under the command of Tverdokhlebov - an honorable officer who was captured by the Germans, was shot and left for dead. It features a colorful and varied group of people, thrust into a situation from which there is no escape. The authoritative yet honorable crime boss Antip "Kulak" (The Fist) and his little gang of unreformed criminals, a young Jewish intellectual who struck his anti-Semite officer, Father (Orthodox Priest) Mikhail who joins the battalion when his parish is destroyed in the house-to-house fighting, political prisoners who hate the regime that condemned them to the GULAG but who are nonetheless willing to fight one last time for their people and country, must all find their courage and their reasons to keep on living, and to keep on fighting.

Although set during a war, not every episode features combat, in fact what combat scenes there are, are often chaotic, sporadic, and short - which was probably the intent of the director. In between, the miniseries focuses on various relationships between the cast, their backgrounds, their thoughts and tragedies. The rape of a young woman by one of Shtrafbat's soldier and then his execution, execution for supposed AWOL, periods of boredom on the march, the celebration (and subsequent consequences) of finding a German bunker stocked with food (and champagne), the moral dilemma of officers unable to save their men from their own superiors, cheating on a spouse, and other situations, feature prominently. The camera is unflinching - it does not turn away from the ugliness of war and the ugliness of human nature, nor from raw human emotions. The dialog likewise does not censor out the swearing.

The acting is superb and deep, and the script is likewise well written. Everything from rage, to weariness, to resignation, to finding a scrap of joy to hang on to, is rendered almost faultlessly. One complaint might be that some of Russian linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies may not always be understood by someone not familiar with the language and culture. Because it is a history drama in a sense, some of the terms and situations (military rank, mention of other battles, certain historical references) may be lost on some viewers. This understanding is not needed to thoroughly enjoy Shtrafbat, but these references are a nice touch of authenticity. Another complain that could be levied, is an occasional anachronism and bending of history to suit the plot, but frankly this is such a riveting miniseries that one will likely forgive these slight mishaps.


This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.

There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.

Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.

Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.

The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.

To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.


A team varied between Scully and Mulder, two other scientists, a pilot, and the guy who plays Bana on Seinfeld, go up to an Arctic research post where all members have died off by either killing each other or killing themselves. They discover there's a worm- a virus- that is parasitic to the point of madness and death. The problem is, after a certain dog lashes out, anyone could be infected, but who? This is not just my favorite episode of season 1, but also one of my favorites from the show. The Arctic environment encloses the characters and, of course like Carpenter's the Thing, it's a lot of fun watching these even-tempered characters suddenly start to flip out in dramatic scenes. And the visual effects of the worm and its effects under the skin are cheesy, I didn't mind them at all. The drama between the characters ends up working more than it would usually because of the tension and because all of the actors (including the Bana guy) understand what's going on in the story. And, as usual, I loved the ambiguity of the ending. Highly recommended.


A true stand out episode from season 1 is what Ice is.An artic location,claustrophobic conditions and a general feel of paranoia looming in the freezing air makes this is a must see episode from season one.The previous occupants of the artic station Mulder,Scully and four others go to have either killed each other or killed themselves.A virus is bringing out murderous aggression and is responsible for bringing out deadly paranoia and fear.Mulder and Scully actually begin to question each others sanity.Tension is that high.The writers have to receive great credit for creating that sort of scenario where the atmosphere is so tense Mulder and Scully come into conflict in such a direct manner


Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed!


Ice the Limerick:

A virus pulled out of the ice

Just didn't know how to play nice.

If infected you'll kill

Because you are ill.

The cure is to be infected twice.

Ice is a great episode; one of the greats from season 1 that began shaping the show and if you ask me you really couldn't ask for much better throughout the entire series. It starts out with an awesome teaser which in my opinion is really one of the best teasers of the series also. A group of scientists in Alaska have drilled something out of the ice core which has for some reason caused them to kill each other. Now Mulder and Scully are sent with three other scientists to investigate what happened. As Mulder says this is either because they are brilliant or expendable. I take this to mean that they had better be brilliant or else... The group soon finds out that the cause of mayhem is a small parasite pulled out of the ice core. A little worm that gets into the bloodstream and causes violent behavior. Since the pilot is infected the rest of the show turns to a suspenseful sort of who-done-it paranoiac thriller as the others begin to suspect each other of being infected. This is not helped at all by an overly paranoid doctor Hodge who is un-trusting of anyone which we learn early on by the first thing he asks: to see everyone's credentials to "make sure we are who we say we are". Events lead to finding out the one who is infected and learning how to cure them.

There are a number of things I like about the episode and of course certain characters that I want to smack in the face from this episode, as well as a couple loopholes but most can be attributed to heightened caution and not thinking clearly. I like Bear from the moment I first meet him. Its a shame he has to die. I also like the scene shown from the other scientist's point of view as Mulder and Scully argue in the other room. It gives an interesting twist to our typical perception as a viewer and for me seems to say maybe we shouldn't assume that just because someone is government means they know all sorts of conspiracy secrets. As much as Hodges frustrates me in this episode I do think that Mulder was as much to blame for some of the rash actions taken as any. I really like Scully in this episode. First of all she can tackle like a frickin linebacker! Second I really like the focus on her terror of what can happen to them out there and how she tries not to let trust and friendship of Mulder keep her from biasing her judgment. I love the scene when she goes into the room to sleep and first looks as the picture of the previous group all hugging and the birthday presents from them to whoever used to sleep in that room and then how she suddenly freaks out and pushes the dresser in front of the door and in a final touch of subtlety as she sits on the floor with her knees pulled into her chest we see the bottom of a poster on the wall that says "Bosom Buddies". This is such great writing. A way to say without any words that Scully is worried that she may not be able to trust even her very best friend.

Unfortunately this heightened suspicion leads the group to believe Mulder to be infected since he discover's Murphy's dead body even though they haven't inspected him at all to find out for sure. That was my main problem with the behavior of the characters is they could easily have solved all the suspicion simply by giving blood. But I guess I probably would have acted rashly in that situation too. But then stupid Hodges decides that he has to assume Mulder is infected even though Mulder willingly surrenders and then is going willingly to be inspected and almost infects Mulder in the process. Luckily he sees that it is really Dasilva that is infected and we finally reach a resolution. At least as much as you can expect from an X-File. The "government" wastes no time in torching the evidence as always happens in these cases and Mulder is left with yet another frustrating "unsolved" case. In closing I give "Ice" and easy 10/10 and I leave you with a haiku.

"We're not who we are. It goes no further than this. It ends right here right now."


This was truly a tense and dark episode. Excellently executed, wonderful acting and atmospheric directing, 'Ice' is one of my favorite episodes. Along with 'Pusher' 'Grotesque' 'Wetwired' and 'Home' (these are quite good in dark atmosphere in my case) It seem quite realistic to me, their paranoia, their suspicion and their ever growing rage was perfectly executed by the great actors. However, 'Ice' had a problem that I got over after a few watches: IT WAS TOO SHORT! I WANTED MORE!

Overall, 'ice' had what 98% of all X Files episodes have: Excellent acting, Intense story-writing, gritty directing. All the works.

10 out of 10


FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of "The Thing".

The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.

Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.

Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.

8/10


Okay, that was just brilliant. I wish that the rest of Season 1 had been this strong. It really needed more episodes like this.

The cast worked perfectly, even though they were all nobodies back in the day. Writing was fantastic and so was the editing. Great job in all accounts.

The episode was thrilling, suspenseful and just kept you guessing until the very end. Which is what most MOTW episodes had tried, but failed until now.

The first FIVE star episode for me. Really good, almost like a movie. I didn't even remember it being this good. I think it's even better than the great horror movie called 'The Thing'.


This is one of the best episodes from the entire X-Files series, creepy beyond words. The tension and suspense in this episode is very well executed, in its entire 45 minutes it managed to be almost as scary as an entire movie. This episode joins the ranks of best episodes with such greats as "Home", "Humbug" "Bad Blood" and "Milagro" for being the best in their respective season.

Mulder and Scully's growing relationship is put to the test in this episode: Can they really trust each other? This episode also contains a tiny scene that will leave romantic viewers smiling.

Mulder: "Bring your mittens"


This definitely the most tension filled X-Files episode of the first season. this episode is what I think of when I hear "X-Files". the plot is simple but exiting. Our main cast plus a few scientist go to investigate an Alskan outpost in which it's research team appears to have killed each other. It turns out a small parasite that got dug up from the ice, had infected the research team. The parasite attaches itself to the brain and causes paranoia and insanity. Soon none can tell who they can trust, or who's infected or not.

This episode was a direct tribute to John Carpenters great horror film "the THING". the Thing is set in Antarctica and a team of scientist find a destroyed outpost in which it's occupant have been killed or killed themselves. An alien that had been buried in the ice for a 10000 years had been thawed out. It has the abilities to imitate any life form. therefore the main characters can no longer distinct friends from foes.

Believe me The THING is one of the most exiting, and tension filled horror movies you'll ever see. if you liked the episode ICE I advice you to see it. Or if you have only seen the THING I advice you to see ICE.

ICE is the best direct tribute/homage to John Carpenter's The THING I have ever seen, and it lives up to it's inspiration as one of the best X-Files episodes. I give it a 10/10.


Yeah, I know my title sucks. I couldn't think of any other title. x] Ice is a brilliant first season episode. Very interesting idea and good acting as well. The whole worm-looking-thing was really creepy in my opinion. I've never been a fan of insects, so all the insect episodes are creepy to me. x] Anyway, lets go on to the good and bad things about this episode,

The Good: The parasite thing. Awesome!

Scully finally trusting Mulder. Awww... <33

It was a good idea to put another parasite in the ear. Though if someone told me they had to put that thing in my ear... I think the whole cabin would be dead.

The Bad: How did the dog stay alive for so long?

How didn't Huffman get those black spots? Or maybe she did, but no-one saw it...

Conclusion: Very good episode, especially for Season 1. 8/10


Tom Hanks returns as Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon in his first adventure Angels & Demons, which Hollywood decided to make after The Da Vinci Code, given the latter's more controversial subject striking a raw nerve on the faith itself. The Catholic Church was up in arms over the first film, but seemingly nonchalant about this one. And it's not hard to see why, considering Ron Howard had opted to do a flat-out action piece that serves as a great tourism video of Rome and Vatican City, and would probably boost visitor numbers given the many beautiful on-location scenes, save for St Peter's Square and Basilica which was a scaled model used.

So I guess with the bulk of the budget going toward the sets, the ensemble cast had to be correspondingly scaled down. Ayelet Zurer tried to step into the female void left by Audrey Tautou, but given Tautou's character then having a lot more stake in the film, Zurer's scientist Vittoria had a lot less to do other than just waiting in the wings to change some batteries on a canister filled with anti-matter. In the book she's the fodder of course for Langdon to converse his vast knowledge of the Vatican, the Illuminati and the great feud between the two, but here she's neither love interest, nor his intellectual equal.

Ewan McGregor on the other hand, chews up each scene he's in as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, who is temporarily taking care of the Papal office while the other prominent cardinals are in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new Pope. And he plays Patrick with that glint in the eye, with nuances enough to let you know there's more than meets the eye. There's no surprises here for readers of the novel, but McGregor's performance here is one of the highlights of the film as Hanks plays well, Tom Hanks.

The book itself is rich with arguably accurate content as always, and had a lot more plot points on science versus religion, and a wealth of information that Dan Brown researched and linked together in an engaging fictional piece of work. While reading the book some years ago, I thought that should a film be made of it, it's easy to lapse and dwell more on the set action pieces. Sadly, that's what this Ron Howard film did, with a pace that doesn't allow a temporary breather. Unlike the first film where you had the characters sit down for some "discussion time" over a cup of tea, this one moved things along so quickly, it's like reading the book all over again, page after page being skipped just to get to the thick of the action.

Catholic reviewers have called Angels & Demons harmless, because I guess it didn't dwell on its many controversies, unlike The Da Vinci Code which struck a raw nerve at the centre of the faith. And if anything, this film served as a great tourism promotional video with a nice showcase of the many prominent touristy landmarks that would entice many around the world to go pay a visit. Naturally certain areas like the catacombs beneath St Peter's Basilica, and the Vatican archives remain out of bounds, but the walk along the Path of Illumination, now that's almost free.

Nothing new for those who have read the book other than to see it come alive, but for those who haven't, this film may just compel you to pick up Dan Brown's novel just to read a bit more about the significance about the landmarks, and characters such as Galileo, Michelangelo and Bernini who are intricately linked to the plot, but much left unsaid. Satisfying pop-corn entertainment leaving you with nothing spectacular.


Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.

The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter.

The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way.

The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets.

However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost).

While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder.

A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.

7.4/10


Where Da Vinci code introduced us to Dr. Robert Langdon and his knack for solving puzzles, Angels and Demons ups the ante by providing a huge puzzle with an 8 hour limit.

With a cast of award winning actors, Ron Howard does a good job of directing a story that was easy to follow and even easier to accept. The Da Vinci code threw so many angles at you in such a short time that a quick bathroom break would leave you a bit confused on return. I didn't feel this was with Angels and Demons, the plot was straight-forward and the action kept the interest level peaked throughout.

Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) was easily my favorite character in the movie. His portrayal of the elitist, yet misunderstood rank of the Catholic Church was very good and combined with the victim of his treatment Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), you will find yourself choosing sides immediately upon introduction. There isn't a great amount of Tom Hanks time as the film focuses more on story than character development and this did well with me being that I had more than enough introduction from the first movie.

Unfortunately I found Ayelet Zurer's character Vittoria Vetra to be an unnecessary femme assistant in the quest since her lines were a bit limited and seemed much like an afterthought. She does play a key role in the beginning of things but she soon fades into the background of being Langdon's "familiar" more-so than a necessary partner.

The plot is as such, one of the organizations that the Catholic Church wronged in the past (there have been quite a few) has sought revenge in a most artistic manner. Some men of the church are kidnapped and are set to be executed at specific times until an ultimate end to the church itself will happen. Dr. Robert Landon is brought in to help decipher the clues and teams up with the beautiful Vittoria Vetra, a scientist who witnessed a colleague die at the hands of the church's enemy.

Music staying relevant and the cinematography beautiful, I could chime on about this menial things but what makes Angels and Demons absolutely work is it's conclusion. It was by far one of the most amazingly surprising endings I have seen in a movie and I was impressed at how off-guard I was when it hit me. Like anyone else I appreciate a great wrap-up and this movie wraps it up quite tight and drops a pretty bow on it. Needless to say I left the theater pleased at the movie in it's entirety.

If you are religious and unsure if this movie will offend your Catholic principles. I can say that where The DaVinci code painted Catholicism as a shady cover-up group of sadists, Angels and Demons paints them with a much lighter brush. The church is shown as being a collective of good men who are made to suffer for the sins of evil and misguided men who wore their colors and even a few who have infiltrated their modern ranks.


I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.

The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.

You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.

Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans.


I go to the movies to be entertained. I was very entertained by the first film in this series: The DaVinci Code. It had plenty of twists and turns throughout to keep me very interested. Angels and Demons is no different. If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code, then you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie as well. Angels and Demons is made pretty much with the exact same style as the previous film, but faster paced, which I liked. Ron Howard kept me glued to my seat for the full two hours without boring me one bit.

What I really liked about this movie was that even though it is obviously fictitious, they leave enough real history to make it seem very believable. If there is one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it is that the plot itself is very unbelievable (don't want to give any spoilers). But hey, it's a movie. I was entertained throughout the whole thing and was very satisfied with what I saw.


I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.

There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.

Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.

This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie.


Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.

The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.

Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.

Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.

This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.

The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.

This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.

Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.

It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.

Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.

Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci


This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better.


Was excited at the opening to hear part of "Chevaliers De Sangreal" but wanted more so I bought said Hans Zimmer piece. Possibly the most inspiring and beautiful 4 minutes of music ever written! This movie is an exciting thriller masterpiece even w/o the religious considerations. You get to tour the Vatican and parts of Rome with excellent cinematography. The opening at CERN where the "God Particle" or largest quantity of Antimatter is created with STUNNING visuals is an immediate clue which foretells the excellence of this movie. Who doesn't love Hanks? The storyline and twists in this film are just superb and well drawn out until the amazingly twisted climax. This film suggests a satisfying compromise between Science and Religion though plenty of closed heads will persist on both sides. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." A.Einstein


Still haven't read a single Dan Brown book, but I watched all his movies adaptations. I won't fall into the game to rate this one with the previous because the scope isn't really the same: actually, this one is a thriller, a race against time filled with puzzles.

The plot is very twisted, imaginative and the cast is excellent: I never been a great fan of Hanks but he delivers well. I noticed his jeans shirt (the one spilled with blood) because I search for one like this in vain! The Italian searcher is a brilliant newcomer for me but I really applauded Ewan MacGregor portrayal: his inner faith and calm is really impressive.

I really like the debate between science and religion. The action taking place in the Vatican, it felt like vacation. At last, I am not sure it helps to add new converts into Christianism. With all the gold and man presence displayed, any one would ask what charity means and why women are so dismissed of the church life whereas they stand for half or more the believers.


As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.

I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in "the day." He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.

The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.

Although the story of the "God Particle" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.

In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.

All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.

It rates an 8.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.


As I sat in the theater almost crying to myself in dismay over the atrocity Ron Howard and Tom Hanks call the Da Vinci Code, I could not see the light at the end of the tunnel that is Angels and Demons.

Hanks and Company are back for the Sequel-Prequel Angels and Demons, and they have learned their lesson.

Acting wise everyone is much better. Aylet Zurer is very good as Vittoria Vetra, and better than the girl who played Sophie Neveau. Tom Hanks is very good as always, he is better in this though, because he works harder at giving the movie the feeling that it is a thriller. I think Ewan McGregor does the best job of any of the actors. He might even deserve a nomination come March, but doubtful. He had me convinced right until the very end. He's Dynamic and faithful, but rational, and realizes that the Church needs to put their past behind them. The minor actors also do very good jobs.

Technically and Visually the movie is much improved. The Cinematography is much...much better, and the Visual Effects are superb. The final explosion sequence at the end is excellent. Howard does a masterful job, taking you through a tour of Rome.

Pacing wise, Ron Howard does an amazing job this time around at keeping the story moving, and not boring us with a history lesson deemed at denouncing Christianity. The movie also makes you feel like more is at stake. In our feeble minds discovering whether or not Jesus had children, is not as high up on the list compared to a cataclysmic explosion killing thousands including the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the reason I think the story is so fast paced is due to the excellent score. I cannot say enough about the score. It was epic at times, like something from Lord of the Rings, but then sometimes it felt like a Bourne Movie, which is a nice mix.

My only complaint about this movie is that it is ridiculously far fetched. The chances of the Carmelengo being someone of Ewan McGregors age are highly improbable, and the chances of a Cardinal with an adopted son getting elected Pope are even more ridiculous. Not to mention the whole Antimatter thing, which has yet to be created, and Dan Brown wrote the book in 2003...

Overall Angels and Demons is much tighter knitt, faster paced, more exciting, and more important movie than the Da Vinci Code. This is must see thriller for anyone who loves history and mystery combined into one.


So first things first..

Angels and Demons is a much better and very different film than the Da- Vinci code.

Following the recent slew of comic book movies, remakes and questionable resurrections of aged franchises. it is refreshing to watch a very solid and entertaining film that is devoid of shaky cam filming techniques, lens flare, excessive GCI and over the top action sequences.

In this respect Angels and Demons almost feels old fashioned.It offers a good and considered debate on the age old subject of religion Vs science, offers an insight in to the parallels between the grand houses of God in Rome (beautifully shot by the way) and the temple of modern science that is CERN's large hadron collider facility.

Hanks is Hanks pretending to be the smart guy and he fits the role much better second time around than his wooden performance in Da-Vinci. good support is offered by a rock solid cast, with a particular highlight being Armin Mueller-Stahl's stoic Cardinal. but the films main saving grace is it's pace. for the entire running time I was totally engrossed in the story and the film never really gave me time to sit and pick apart its faults in logic.

My only serious criticism is that some of the science depicted is at best debatable regards real world authenticity. But that is not the fault of the film makers, rather an observation of the old adage that you should never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

Speaking of which the story is a cracker, mixing adventure and a race against time with a good sprinkling of intelligence and a nice twist or two along the way.

overall I would highly recommend this to fans of either of the national treasure movies (which this clearly mimics but with a much more serious vibe) and fans of ripping adventure tales in general.


First i gotta say that this film is way less pretentious than The Da Vinci Code. sure, you have the religion vs science problem but it doesn't try to make a big statement about it. its basically an action thriller that moves from one scene to another very well. one scene particularly (that involves fire) i found extremely well done.

Second, the changes from book to film. although when i was following the development of the film i complained about the change of some characters and the complete removal of others, i gotta admit i was wrong. it was refreshing that the film didn't follow the book in exactly the same way like it was done in Da Vinci. if you are a purist of the book some of them may upset you though. However the BIG TWIST is still there so don't worry about that. finally i'm glad they removed some silly sub-plots and didn't even try to hint at the possibility of Langdon and Vittoria getting together.

The performances are really good, but nothing out of the ordinary. that's okay for a film like this.

i'd give it a 9/10, mainly because it delivers what it promises, entertainment, pure entertainment


I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist.


As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.


This is a low budget stop motion monster movie from Brett (A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell) Piper... and it delivers just what I'd expect from such a production: light-hearted (though cheesy) dialogue, some cute actresses and lots of stop motion critters. That's why I've given the film 10 out of 10 - because it delivers what I expected it to deliver... and a bit more: Brett doesn't penny-pinch when it comes to putting his critters on screen. He hurls lots of bugs at his cast for the finale. And, anyway, I LOVE stop motion monsters which, compared to CGI critters in bigger budgeted movies, just seem to be that much fun to watch.


OK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use. No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me.

Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The "arachnids" looked like they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc...

You must really love B-Movies to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others.


In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?

I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for.


I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.

There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from "The Scare Master", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.

The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love it!


Brett Piper again makes a very good film that is trashed by the so called film "experts." it is low budget, but fun, and the leading lady is very sexy. I wish i could see more of Irene Joseph. Good viewing fun. I bought the DVD and enjoyed it. The special effects are stop motion animation, and much better than the computer generated crap they call effects today. I always enjoy Brett Piper movies, and if you liked this I recommend Bite Me, Screaming Dead and anything else he has done. I look forward to seeing more of his work and well as more of Ms. Joseph. I simply cannot see why this woman hasn't been in more movies, as her acting is excellent.


I first saw "Death in Venice" 1971) about 15 years ago, found it profoundly moving and often thought about it. Watching it again few days ago, I realized that it is close to the top of the great works of cinema. With hardly any dialog it captivates a viewer with the beautiful cinematography, the fine acting, and, above all, the Mahler's music without which the movie simply could not exist.

"Death in Venice" is a stunning Luchino Visconti's adaptation of the Thomas Mann novella about a famous composer (in the novella he was a writer but making him a composer in a movie was a great idea that works admirably) Gustav von Aschenbach (loosely based on Gustav Mahler) who travels to Venice in the summer of 1911 to recover from personal losses and professional failures. His search for beauty and perfection seems to be completed when he sees a boy of incredible divine beauty. Ashenbach (Dirk Bogard) follows the boy everywhere never trying to approach him. The boy, Tadzio, belonged to very rare creatures that own an enigmatic and inconceivable power which captivates you, enchants you, conquers you and makes you its prisoner. Ashenbach became one of the prisoners of Tadzio spellbinding charms. He became addicted to him; he fell in love with him. Was it bless or curse for him? I think both. He died from unreachable, impossible yet beautiful love which object was perfection itself. The last image Ashenbach's eyes captured was that of the boy's silhouette surrounded by the sea and golden sun light. Nothing could compare to the beauty and charm of the scene and to take it with you to the grave is the death one can only dream about. If he could, Ashenbach probably would've said, "I was able to witness one of the faces of perfection, I could not bear it but I was chosen to learn that it exists here, in this world and I can die in peace now because it did happen to me."

Unforgettable music, Gustav Mahler's haunting adagietto of his Fifth Symphony found perfect use in a perfect movie. It reflects every emotion of a main character - it sobs, it longs, it begs for hope, and it summarizes the idea that once you are blessed to encounter beauty you are condemned to die. I may come up with hundreds movies that use classical music to perfection but nothing will ever compare to "Death in Venice". I dare say that Mahler's music IS its main character - it would change and sound differently depending on what was happening on the screen. It sounded triumphantly when Ashenbach returned back to Venice, to what he thought would be his happiness but turned to be his death. It sounded gloomy when he first entered Venice from the sea. You can hear so many different feelings in it - tenderness and adoration, confusion and self-loathing, worship and melancholy, but always - LOVE that gives the purest happiness and breaks the hearts (literally). The movie for a viewer is similar to what the boy was for the aging composer/writer/Artist. We are enchanted and captivated by its power and beauty as much as Achenbach was by the boy's mysterious charm.


Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.

We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.

Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.

[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art.

[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.]


Thomas Mann's controversial novel is the basis for the film "A Death in Venice. " Although in the book, the hero is an author, in the film the director Luchino Visconti who also wrote the screenplay, transforms him into a Composer. As such, the Author/Composer, Gustav Von Aschebach (Dirk Bogarde) on the verge of mental exhaustion is a burned-out artisan. After a long and successful career now seeks the peace and tranquility of a less hectic life. He decides to go on vacation to Venice where he hopes to rejuvenate his dwindling ambition. However, while staying at the picturesque seaside resort, he captures the attention of a beautiful young teenage boy, Tadzio (Björn Andrésen) who eyes him with curious interest and is immediately smitten by him. Although Gustav is captivated by the wondrous youth, he nevertheless must find some private time away from the boy's governess (Nora Ricci), while having to cope with a invading plague which seems to have infested the city. The movie dialog, like the novel remains subtle as are the few brief encounters between the boy and the artist. In the end. the audience unlike the book is hampered with innuendos and imaginative flights of fancy. Their affair is never given wing, substance or opportunity and were it not for the brief resolution in the book, the film allows only the possibility of 'what if.' Nevertheless, one can sympathize with the hero and wish him a moment's peace to obtain that which is forbidden, elusive but definitely criticized by prying eyes. Great story and a Bogarde Classic. ****


Are sea side resorts the sad, dreary places they're always depicted as in movies and novels? Certainly this movie, along with the near-contemporary "Don't Look Now" depicts Venice as a particularly squalid and decadent tourist trap (for a more light-hearted approach, see "Just Married" with Ashton Kutcher and Brittany Murphy). Having never been to Venice I can't say for sure, but it does make a perfect setting for this somber but sumptuous spectacle from Luchino Visconti, one of the great stylists of world cinema. Having seen the movie I now wish I had gotten around to reading the Thomas Mann novella it's based on (which also inspired an opera by Sir Benjamin Britten). Since I don't know the back story and the movie has little in the way of plot or exposition, I'm left wondering about Aschenbach (Dirk Bogarde)'s obsession with young Tadzio. Is he a homosexual? A pedophile? Or is his longing for the beautiful youth something more innocent? Perhaps Tadzio reminds him of what he could have been and now knows he never will be. Those who complain of the slow pace of this movie should stick to car crashes and kung-fu: at 2 hours and 15 minutes it's not particularly long, and it moves at a leisurely but hardly sluggish pace. The film benefits from the ravishing music of Gustave Mahler, on whom Aschenbach's character is clearly based. Dirk Bogarde gives a moving performance, and the movie is graced by the presence of Silvana Mangano, one of Italy's great beauties, as Tadzio's mother.


Set in Venice mainly on the Lido, Visconti's "Death in Venice" is a triumph of filmmaking combining the excellence of Dirk Bogarde's characterisation and expert photography of the resort area in all its various daily moods. For those who love Venice, this is a film to cherish.

Mahler's music frequently heard throughout the film heightens the drama. The mood it creates is not always happy. But then what else would you expect with a title like that?

There is not a lot of dialogue in the film. Rather sparse in fact. It's mainly background noises and chatter and laughter among the hotel guests. The intriguing part is to interpret the exchange of glances between Gustav von Aschenbach a composer of some renown and a slim teenage youth Tadzio who see each other from time to time across the tables of the hotel dining room, on the beach and at odd unexpected places around Venice. They seem to acknowledge each other's presence shyly at first with little more than the suggestion of a smile but later with a strong and riveting and urgent gaze.

Each viewer will have his own interpretation. The composer has lost a child of his own. Is this behaviour an expression of yearning for the child he loved? Is it perhaps a sexual attraction towards this fragile young man with his dazed somewhat girlish stare? Could he be discovering some new inspiration for a yet unwritten musical masterpiece? Who knows?

From beginning to end this film captures the true spirit of 19th Century Venice. The elegance of the ladies, the deck chairs on the sand, the children frolicking in their neck-to-knee bathing costumes, the glow of sunsets and a general feeling of satisfaction with the world. While some may think the pace is rather slow at times, the film has an overall gentle quality, but with a simmering indecision between two repressed human beings. Be prepared for a sad and beautiful ending.


Story of a strange love and a fall desire. Poem about beauty and his perfection, fear and touch.A slice of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. And an agonize Venice. Idon't know if it is a masterpiece, a poem or the reflection of a film director's world. It is, absolutely, a" memento mori". and a exploration of illusion. A old mirror of limits, signs and death's delicacy. A trip in an old space, nostalgic, cruel and splendid. "Death" is a Orfeu's trip copy in the immediate reality. And the essence is the music. A soft, sweet music, like honey or winter's fire. Like every regret and every sorrow. Like a refuge in deep solitude. Gustav is gay by accident. He is the Researcher of last form of God's presence. The Beauty, that beauty who gives life's sense, who is sin and virtue in same time, the gift of expectations and sufferings. He dies because he has right to hope, to believe in the reality of miracle and in his way. A victim? No way! Only Tadzio may give the freedom like an insignificant sacrifice. Who saw the sun can hope to live in same condition?


In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses Else whatif the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself.

It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself.

Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him.

Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself.

In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art.


I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and "The Leopard" not; it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story. Like "The Leopard," it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike. It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point -- Gustav surrounded by a visual din.

The way in which the object of Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him, just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem (there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much). Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms in is all.

The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene, which unlocks his repressed vanity.

It isn't totally successful -- the whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower, something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes -- touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses, or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9/10


It may be hard to explain how, but this film is a masterpiece. Perhaps, because i never imagined that a plot like this or a film with so few words would convey all this poetry. The true poetry and aristocracy of human passions and obsession. Bogard is amazing and needless to say that Venice is utilised as a perfect scenery: dark, sinking and dreary just like Bogard's soul. And classical music is more that a simple background escort to human feelings. In my opinion, a classic masterpiece of european film-making.