Set in and near a poor working class town in the mountains of rural Italy, it's a story of madness. The landscape may be quite picturesque, but there's madness herein, concealed behind the mask of a person who seems outwardly normal. This person kills little children.

In style and tone this film resembles Dario Argento's famous Italian giallos, those fascinating whodunit horror films, except that Argento's films are much better looking. Still, the visuals in Fulci's "Don't Torture A Duckling" are competent, with some interesting compositions and lighting. Lightning and thunder on a rainy night enhances suspense in one sequence wherein one of the "ducklings" is vulnerably alone.

In one sequence the gore is a bit overdone. But this is no slasher film. A legitimate theme undergirds the story. And that theme is that madness can take many unexpected forms, not just the obvious delusions of people who practice voodoo or black magic.

Plenty of red herrings render the puzzle solution difficult if the viewer doesn't assume an agenda on the part of the director. Don't dismiss someone who might not seem to be a suspect. The twist near the end provides good misdirection. However, in one scene midway through, a line of dialogue could have been added to clarify the relationship between two characters, one of whom is the murderer. The film's finale takes place on a beautiful mountaintop with the wind whistling in the background. We see flashbacks to clues and get insights into the killer's mindset.

I don't care for the film's widescreen projection. But background music is effective, and ranges from jarringly creepy at the beginning to low-key jazz, to indigenous Italian songs. Acting is generally average, though in a couple of cases, it's a bit overdone.

Though not as visually brilliant as Argento's giallos, "Don't Torture A Duckling" nevertheless is a fine film, one that contains a thematic storyline and enough of a whodunit puzzle to interest most viewers who like thrillers and murder mysteries.


In this early Fulci work the director shows his most mainstream side as well as a talent for compelling storytelling and more than reasonable elucidation for the genre. Personally I think he has been unfairly maligned throughout his career as an aesthete of gore. It's a pretty capable procedural and surprised me with its subtextually rich narrative that shows his distrust for small minded small-town mentality and the inefficiency of the police, as well as the twisted ideals of the Catholic church, the last of which seemed to have cut this film at its knees when it was first released and could have possibly given the director another direction so early on. The comparative lack of gore in the film shows a more urgent and psychological imperative to this film in its prevailing "mystery" but the gore and puppetry he does utilise is put to good use here most notably in the scene where a falsely accused murderer is senselessly lynched by a mob of men in a graveyard and left for dead in a show of vile and antiquated vigilantism, expertly choreographed to the modern tunes off a diegetic radio.

Another example was the final scene (which was indeed awesome) in which a strikingly handsome priest falls from a cliff and the puppet used is markedly showed in a medium closeup which accentuated its demonic appearance and evident ugliness. Curiously, considering his later works, Fulci also invokes the idea of modernity seized upon the hamlet holding on to its anachronistic superstitions and ignorance when the idea of black magic is just that, a quaint idea of supernatural evil that never really ends up manifesting from the voodoo dolls while making its witch nothing more than a disturbed woman. Another thing I liked was that he adds to these character layers by making a bourgeois city girl into an ambiguous figure - is she the corrupter the priest fears for his wards and perhaps more tellingly, for himself? This giallo does lend itself to becoming one of Fulci's more personal and substantive films, in that we actually get a fair influx of ideas from him.


Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the "Godfather Of Gore". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" aka. "Don't Torture A Duckling" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! "Don't Torture A Duckling" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.

Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...

The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.

"Don't Torture A Duckling" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece!


I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of story and character development. Fulci was a master at creating horrific atmosphere using inventive camera work, vivid cinematography, and yes - wonderfully explicit gore.

This film is no exception, however, compared to his later films (The Beyond, Zombie 2, City of the Living Dead, House by the Cemetery, etc.) the characters here are extremely well developed and the emphasis shies away from the supernatural and is more on the suspense created by a classic who-dunnit amongst the lush hills of Italy. The scenery is at moments reminiscent of cherished folklore and then immediately contrasted by mud and blood-soaked terror shrouded by crumbling ruins. The gore in this film is not quite as prevalent and seems restrained compared to Fulci's later films however, splatter and giallo fans will most likely be satiated by a few close-ups of oozing wounds and the last 5 minutes of the film.

Overall a fantastic and mature film from one of our great Italian horror directors.


This film shows a serious side to the often thought of as gore-fest works of fulci. Not a lot of blood and guts here , but a fine tale about murder and the lives affected by it.

A real find, considering it was made in 1972 and will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Check this one out, but be warned it is hard to find!

Ron


I saw this movie five times and never get tired of it. This features traces of the "giallo" genre, but also with a vivid Italian countryside setting, where ignorance and superstition are deadlier than any serial killer. Featuring excellent location (reminiscent sometimes of Fellini, sometimes of the Taviani brothers), good characterisation and some of the finest genre actors (including the great Tomas Milian and Ida Lupino in an unforgettable role), this is NOT euro-trash, just a masterpiece that should be discovered generation after generation (It recently recieved great acclaim at the Paris Cinematheque at a double-feature tribute to Lucio Fulci)


First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like "Tenebre" and "Phenomena". But after I saw "New York Ripper" by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.

I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.

Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is "The Beyond", a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.

I give "Don't torture a duckling" a 7 out of 10.


Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, "Don't Torture a Duckling" is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's "Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "New York Ripper", "Don't Torture a Duckling" dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery!


What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.

The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence.

What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.


Don't Torture a Duckling is an absolutely stunning giallo diversion for Lucio Fulci. Unlike other subgenre heavyweights like Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Fulci takes a decidedly gritty, grounded, and socially perceptive approach to the giallo narrative in this film. There is nothing glamorous about the child murders and borderline pedophilia (a gutsy subplot for 1972) going on here, and Fulci wisely shoots with a staid and lugubrious eye, avoiding flash, melodrama, and directorial histrionics. The proceedings are punctuated by gory and instantly mind-searing set pieces that are bolstered even further by Fulci's jarring sense of realism the deeply disturbing "witch killing" scene in particular, with its bald-faced brutality, feels like a snuff film. Composer Riz Ortolani bookends these carnage-filled scenes with ferocious reverberating string blasts.

The film is capped by a simultaneously lyrical and violent conclusion wherein theology, morality, fanaticism, and superstition collide. It is a deeply effective ending that has the capacity to leave the viewer in a befuddled and disarmed torpor.

Fulci couldn't have picked a better location for this film. Don't Torture a Duckling was photographed in and around the ancient city of Matera, Italy. As Matera continues to modernize to this day (highlighted by its shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial one), it is grappling with its UNESCO-sponsored reputation as a receptacle for mysterious paleolithic ghosts. The anxieties of the real-life Materani are reflected by the characters in the film, who, wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, fretfully confront any exotic fringe tradition (namely witchcraft) that strays outside of the norm.

Interestingly enough, Matera was also used as a stand-in for Jerusalem in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If anything, this adds even more potency to Fulci's message. Catholic guilt and grisly slayings are such a resonant combination.


"Don't Torture a Duckling" is one of the coolest Italian horror films I've ever seen, and I've seen my share. To call it a giallo is a little misleading because it's not really a typical murder mystery. It's more of a straight horror movie.

Complete with one of the most brutal and gory scenes ever in a movie this old, Fulci's twisting and turning film oozes with a creepy ambiance and an old school Italian feel. The setting is perfect: an old Italian village. The music is ridiculously perfect. The finale is genuine and original.

After seeing "Don't Torture a Duckling" you really have to wonder how Fulci's later stuff got so off beat. I like all his stuff, but he strayed. Maybe he figured he already did it...Because with this film, he hits the bullseye.

I'd recommend this film to anyone who thinks that Dario Argento owns the giallo genre. Fulci beats him with this one.

10 out of 10, kids.


I'm not a huge fan of Lucio Fulci's films. Most of his 80s gore films had their moments, but often came across as second-rate Dario Argento imitations. With the exception of the entertaining "Zombi" (which was a George Romero imitation), I didn't really enjoy them. I know Italian horror often disregards the plot, but the storyline and characters in his films were just far too thread bare even by the standards. This is why "Don't Torture a Duckling" surprised me. Its actually a very well made film with an engrossing murder mystery. Its possibly the best giallo ever made, only seriously rivaled by Dario Argento's entries into the genre. And unlike Fulci's previous giallo "A Lizard in a Woman's Skin", this never drags.

Fulci's direction here is quite good. He keeps the story moving at a good pace and maintains the viewer's interest throughout. Also, the conclusion to the mystery comes as a complete surprise to the audience. Plus, he adds some clever touches, such as the upbeat soul music during a particularly disturbing graveyard beating sequence. Overall, the violence here is restrained and only used when necessary for the story. The acting is good for the most part also, full of familiar faces from 70s Italian exploitation cinema. Both Thomas Milian and Barbara Bouchet are super cool throughout. The only weak link is Florinda Bolkan, whose performance is just far too over-the-top. Its the only laughable aspect of the film. "Don't Torture a Duckling" definitely comes with my recommendation and may be a good introduction to the giallo subgenre as a whole. (8/10)


This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema  a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.

Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!

Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.

Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though  like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.

Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani  particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema.


Lucio Fulci made a lot of great films throughout his career and the way that many of them featured a bucket load of gore lead to him earning the title 'The Godfather of Gore'. While Don't Torture a Duckling was made before Fulci became well known amongst gorehounds, and isn't all that gory; it's certainly a gritty and nasty little thriller, and for my money - the best film that Fulci ever made! Don't Torture a Duckling really is head and shoulders above a lot of the Giallo genre in terms of production values and unlike many of Fulci's later films, everything about this Giallo is great. The plot focuses on a small rustic community where dead bodies have began turning up. The murders are even more shocking because the victims are just young boys. Shortly after the police convict an innocent man of the crimes, a reporter named Andrea Martelli arrives in the village and decides to start investigating the murders on his own. Martelli soon encounters various suspects, including a sexy young lady named Patricia, a sinister priest and a local witch who enjoys making wax effigies and sticking pins into them.

While this film may not feature loads of gore, it does have two of Fulci's nastiest sequences to make up for it. The nastiest involves a woman being brutally slaughtered by a group of men in a cemetery, while the image of a man falling from a cliff and hitting any number of rocks on the way down is liable to turn some stomachs. Don't Torture a Duckling features an absolutely great Italian cast. Barbara Bouchet (a personal favourite of mine) is incredibly sexy in her role as Patricia, and gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in many later films. Tomas Millian is excellent as usual while the rest of the cast is well fleshed out by likes of Irene Pappas, Florinda Bolkan and Marc Porel. The cinematography on display is stunning and Fulci really gives the viewer the impression that he puts a lot of care and effort into every scene. The story plays out slowly, and it's always interesting as Fulci never allows the film to stray too much from the central plot line. There isn't a great deal of mystery towards the identity of the murderer; but Fulci almost manages to keep us guessing right up until the end and Don't Torture a Duckling does climax on a high. Overall, it's a shame that Fulci didn't make more films like this. Don't Torture a Duckling is his out and out best work and I insist that every Giallo fans sees it!


Documentaries in which sons and daughters seek to understand a parent and, by the process, their own lives are not that uncommon. Also not uncommon are results that reflect lack of talent, a failure of introspection, an abundance of narcissism and, perhaps, an unsubtle quest for publicly-splashed revenge for countless past hurts, real and fantasized. What is unusual is a brilliant, fair and engrossing portrait of a fascinating parent and "My Architect: A Son's Journey" is that rare achievement.

Louis Kahn emigrated to this country as a child, his face irreparably and brutally scarred by an accident. He and his parents settled in Philadelphia where the talented youngster loved art and music. Soon he became enamored of buildings and decided only an architect's career would answer his creative abilities.

Kahn became an architect but as this film shows it took a long time before he attracted the attention of the leaders in his field. One architect suggests that he was a victim of the "yellow armband," that anti-Semitism that along with bias against women was long a disreputable aspect of the American profession of architecture.

When he did achieve notice, he was seen, clearly accurately, as a self-assured, workaholic prophet exclaiming unyielding demands that his vision and only his vision be realized. That inflexibility was the reason that while he drew wonderful plans for many buildings he built but a few. The interview with an aged gentleman who fired Kahn in Philadelphia because of his unacceptable dream of a transformed urban center where people left their cars on the perimeter and walked into the city is hilarious.

Kahn was a born teacher and some of the extensive archival footage here shows him with students, his voice steady but passionate, their gazes respectful and intense.

Many architects were interviewed by director, writer and project honcho Nathaniel Kahn, the architect's only son. Some are world famous - I. M. Pei, Robert A.M. Stone, Moshe Safdie, Frank Gehry and the still active nonagenarian, Philip Johnson. Their comments paint a vivid picture of this idealistic but in the end financially unsuccessful designer of buildings that blended the castles, fortresses and grand buildings of past centuries into designs for the present. Kahn's buildings are shown, among the most impressive being the Salk Research Laboratories in La Jolla, CA. To me his style has a neo-Romantic air deadened by too much blank space that repels rather than attracts human interaction.

But Kahn's son was after more than the story of his father, the architect. For many years Louis Kahn had three families: a wife with whom he had a daughter and two long-term relationships, one of which produced a daughter, the other the son. Kahn visited his son at the mother's home often but at the end of an evening mother and son would drive Kahn back to the marital home. Nathaniel clearly wanted to know about this unusual set of relationships but he doesn't appear to be scarred by what was certainly a strange affair for a little boy.

When Nathaniel was a young boy Louis Kahn died of a massive heart attack in the men's room of New York's Pennsylvania Station after returning from India where he had pitched one of his massive projects, another one that was never built. At that point his Philadelphia firm was at least $500,000 in debt and had he lived a trip to the federal bankruptcy court was probably in the offing.

Kahn left several monumental structures of which the government building in Bangladesh is clearly the biggest. A teary local architect hails Kahn for having created a building where democracy may (and hopefully will) flourish.

Fellow architect Moshe Safdie opines that there might have been something fitting in Kahn's suffering a mortal heart attack in a train station given his incessant globetrotting. I disagree: it's sadly ironic that Kahn should die in the faceless replacement for one of America's true architectural gems, the old Pennsylvania Station, wrecked to make way for a sterile replacement with no character and no continuation of civic memory.

There are a number of emotional moments filmed during the younger Kahn's journey, including with his half-sisters and his mother, but they're genuine and moving, not maudlin and staged. Historians of architecture will always study Kahn. His son found reasons to remember him as a flawed but very iconoclastic and ultimately private man.

9/10.


My impression, having seen this documentary, is that Nathaniel Kahn ended up with more questions than he had before he made the film.

He took five years to make it, a labour of love and longing. I can only imagine the turmoil of the editing process, what to leave in, what to take out.

His father, the renowned architect Louis Kahn,comes across as a man too selfish and self-absorbed to be emotionally available to even one wife not alone three. But like many men of his character, he attracted women who were spellbound by the remoteness and entranced by the creativity.

One of his mistresses said he was "accessible" but that is never explored. Other comments by people who knew him well suffer the same fate. A pity.

The tension between the three half-siblings in the room of a home Louis designed is also palpable. The unsaid hovers over the conversation. The only tracks that his father left were in the buildings he left behind, some great, some not so great.

I was captivated by the music ship and the Salk Institute. Saddened by the baby mothers who got caught forever by his callous impregnations never more exemplified than what he said to the director's mother upon being told of her pregnancy - "not again!"

8 out of 10, beautifully filmed, genuine.

It appears, in this case at least, the son is not the father of the man.


My Architect is a great film about Nathaniel Kahn's search for himself via the legacy of his famous Architect father, Louis Kahn, dead since 1974. The film builds slowly, but perfectly, and what starts out as a seemingly lost fortysomething's identity crisis unfolds into a beautiful tale with much deeper meaning with regard to the importance of love, loss, family and perhaps more importantly, our life's work.

I had never heard of Louis Kahn prior to this film, although I was vaguely familiar with some of his work. Through the words (both good and bad) of Louis Kahn's colleagues, you get a very good sense of what Nathaniel must have felt as memories are recalled and stories retold. Sometimes it seemed as though these people were telling Nathaniel how to feel about his father. As I listened to each recollection, my own opinion of this man would range from beautiful to horrible, sometimes in the span of a moment, so you get a good feel for the rollercoaster that Nathaniel's emotions must have been riding.

The final sequence in Bangladesh totally made the film for me. The reverence of which the people of Bangladesh spoke of Louis Kahn's work tied all the loose ends together nicely for me, and, hopefully, for Nathaniel.

I think Nathaniel Kahn finally found what he was looking for.


What a tribute to his father! He set out on a quest to learn more about a man whom he knew little of, and by the end of the journey, I believe Nathaniel Kahn is content with what he learned and personally felt. The film is 5 years in the making, and a quarter of a century after his death, Louis I. Kahn's total commitment in his work - consistent strong desire to build buildings that are meaningful to humanity and timeless to the whole world, with insight into his life is proudly depicted by his son Nathaniel in the documentary "My Architect: A Son's Journey".

The film is by no means an anthology of Louis' work. There are plenty of books and archived materials that have records of Louis Kahn's projects and buildings. This documentary works like a mystery, writer-director and co-producer Nathaniel Kahn was searching for the man whom he briefly knew as his father.

The film is in chapters. In "Heading West," we're at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies at La Jolla, California. It's a sight worth beholding - Kahn's integral concept of building and environment, optimizing light for the scientists at work is amazing. From a former colleague who worked with 'Lou' 35 years ago, we hear about his meticulous attention to detail, also how 'rambunctious' he could be - certainly didn't mince words in his criticism. A memorable scene is when the camera pulled back wide and we see Nathaniel skating around at the plaza area of the Salk Institute - a tiny figure, like a child happily playing in the bowl of his father's hands.

The "Immigrant" segment brought us to meet Anne Tyng, the architect who collaboratively worked with 'Lou' and also bore him a daughter, Alex. Now at 80, Tyng's return with Nathaniel's film crew to the Bath House project at Trenton, New Jersey, was nostalgic. In "Go to sea," we get to see the Barge for American Wind Symphony Orchestra - all made of steel, and meeting Robert Boudreau, who was surprised by Nathaniel when he finally told him he's 'Lou's' son. Boudreau was touched, he said he had seen Nathaniel when he was six, with his Mom (Harriet Pattison), and he was not to tell anyone that Lou had a son. It was a 'chokingly' emotional moment of reunion.

Like his father "The Nomad," Nathaniel traveled to Jerusalem, and learned about the Synagogue project that his father began but not realized. He visited the wailing wall, and seeing his yarmulke kept falling off/being 'breezed off' his head gave me a sense that he need not be 'totally' Jewish to be his father's son. We continue with sitting down with his two half-sisters at the "Family Matters" segment. We also hear him conversing with his Mom at Maine, and from talking to previous office personnel at his father's office, we come to know how his father intensely worked and practically lived there, sleeping on a carpet on the office floor, weekends and all.

"The End of the Journey" brought us to Ahmedabad, India, to the Indian Institute of Management building. Talking with architect B.V. Doshe was a revelation. In the end, Nathaniel found a very much alive Louis Kahn, his father - his spirits live within him. This documentary is very much a tear-jerker for me. I was teary-eyed most of the time - it was very touching and am in awe of the man, the architect and his son, and the women in his life besides his famous works and buildings. Louis I. Kahn wanted to give his love to the 'whole world,' juggling work and three families (you might say he has three women in his life to keep his inspiration going). As Shamsul Wares, the architect at the Capital of Bangladesh complex (completed 9 years after 'Lou's' death) so poignantly noted: Louis Kahn has given the people of Bangladesh a lot, spending time at Bangladesh, understanding the culture of the place and people - as well as giving them democracy through what he has achieved, and for such a dedicated man, usually the people close to him he'd often miss seeing. It seems the price of being great comes with inevitable personal sacrifices.

This film reminds me of King Vidor's "The Fountainhead" 1949 (good dramatic story in B/W with music by Max Steiner), based on Ayn Rand's novel, with Gary Cooper as the uncompromising architect who stands by his own ideals, and Patricia Neal as the parallel supportive woman in his life.


Nominated for best documentary feature at 2004's Academy Awards, My Architect follows filmmaker Nathaniel Kahn in his quest to find out about his father, the legendary architect Louis I Kahn. Lou Kahn died in 1974, when Nate was 11 years old, leaving behind an incredible but limited body of work, unpaid debts and three separate families all living within a few kilometres of each other.

My Architect follows Kahn's life through chronologically examining his buildings, and interspersing their beauty with the story of a charismatic, but selfish and emotionally immature genius. As the son which Lou never publicly acknowledged during his lifetime, Nate has delicately placed himself in the story without overpowering the main focus.

When examining the magnificent Salk Institute in California, Nate evokes his father's mythic use of space and light in his buildings, making it a peaceful and fascinating experience for viewers. The shot of Nate rollerblading in Salk's smoky white central meeting place emphasises the building's harmony with nature. It's breathtaking. My Architect also covers the difficulty Louis Kahn had with getting his designs accepted. Several fantastical buildings exist only on paper, dismissed by more practical architects and property developers. It wasn't until Louis Kahn went to the East that his visions were enthusiastically embraced. In India, where he built the Indian

Institute of Management, a former co-worker describes him as a guru. In Bhangladesh, where he built the magnificent National Assembly Building, citizens consider him a father of democracy.

Watching My Architect is a wonderful way to begin or continue learning about architecture and the importance of space. But it's the irony of Lou Kahn's egotism combined with the transcendence of his work that will inspire you. 4 stars.


When Nathaniel Kahn embarked into this voyage, he hardly knew who his father really was. By the end of the film, he found him and comes to terms with the strange life he lived as a child.

Louis Kahn was the father. He was an architect's architect. His designs were perhaps too complex, as he tried to create buildings that didn't conform with trends popular at that time. It is ironic that he never achieved the fame that came so easy to some of his contemporaries. He had a vision and he never strayed from it. We can see characteristics of his unique style in the buildings he left behind as a legacy to humanity. Every one of his creations are unique in that they don't imitate works from other architects.

Louis Kahn's life was rather complicated. He was married, yet he had affairs with two of his assistants that produced a girl and a boy, besides the legitimate daughter he had with his wife.

As a boy, Nathaniel Kahn's life was lived in a secluded area, away from his father, who only visited late at night. Louis Kahn never recognized these children, although it is very clear they all knew about the others existence.

It is tragic that Louis Kahn died alone in Grand Central Station when he was returning from a trip without making peace with the women and children he never acknowledged as his own by his side. He probably cared a great deal about all his children, but he remains an aloof figure throughout the film. We never get to know the man, although at the end, Nathaniel, in his quest to discover his father's life, finds most of the missing pieces of the puzzle.

This is a personal account on the life of an artist. Thanks to that son, who has the courage to tell the story, we are almost prying into the lives of Louis Kahn and his extended family.


This is a profound and moving work about the creation of art, that which is uniquely human and cannot be produced by nature, the cost of genius and the search for transcendence and what in the end constitutes family, i.e, all of us. I was very much moved by the family discussion that Nathaniel had with his sisters about the shortcomings of their father as it was set in a beautiful home that seemed to radiate warmth that Lou had created. And although Esther seems so cold in her discussion about Lou's inability to make money you can appreciate how she at many points in his life must have been a counter-weight to his impulses. Nathaniel did a great job of showing how all of the people in Lou's life fit in and completed it and became as much a part of his work as his own genius. Yes even, or maybe especially, our failures make us who we are. And of course there are the buildings. I had only known Lou Kahn by name and did not really connect his name to his work, they are evidence of grace. Perhaps someday there will be a building where we will all fit, and it will certainly resemble a Lou Kahn building, perhaps the unbuilt temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps there is salvation


On March 17, 1974, a man is found dead in the toilets at Manhattan's Penn Station. Although well-known, he cannot be identified because he scratched out the personal information in his passport and his body lays unclaimed at the city's morgue for three days. It turned out to be the body of what many consider one of the greatest American architects of the twentieth century, Louis I. Kahn. He died at the age of 73, on his way from India, where one of his greatest projects, the Institute for Management in Ahmedabad, was nearing completion.

One of the most influential post-war American architects, Louis Kahn's architectural legacy includes the house of parliament in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, the Yale Art Gallery, the Salk Institute in California and a kind of mobile "music boat", designed to give concerts in harbours in various cities around the world.

While celebrated as an architect, very little was known about his private life. In addition to his wife Esther, and their daughter, Sue Ann, Kahn was survived by two mistresses, Harriet Pattison and Anne Tyng, and their two children. All three families lived within miles of each other in suburban Philadelphia, but their paths never crossed until the funeral. His son, Nathaniel, the director of this film, was only 11 years old at the time, and had only a few memories of his father's weekly visits at Harriet Patterson, Nathaniel's mother, in Philadelphia. Twenty-five years later, he sets out on a journey to confront his father by visiting Kahn's buildings, talking to relatives and colleagues and visiting the places that played a role in Louis Kahn's life.

One of the most moving confrontations is when Nathaniel asks his mother, a landscape architect and mistress of Louis Kahn, why she kept up with playing second fiddle to his wife and never confronted him with this. Tears shed her eyes, but she has no regrets. "It was worth it." It's such an intensely sad moment. She's obviously shattered, treated as an outcast at his funeral, which she was forbidden to attend, it's almost as if she led a substitute life. It all feels strangely unreal. Another interview with Edward Bacon, Kahn's architectural nemesis, who was in charge of the rebuilding of his native Philadelpia in the fifties and sixties, almost suffers a stroke on the spot, when he is reminded of Kahn's unsavoury ideas about architecture. His son, Nathaniel, listens uncomfortably when a very senior Bacon literally screams with anger whenever Kahn's name comes up. The final scene is reserved for Kahn's grandest creation, the Capitol in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It took 23 years to complete, a vast and extraordinary building, of which the Bangladeshi are extremely proud. It's one of the very few national symbols with stature in this impoverished nation. Some of the interviews with the locals brought tears in my eyes, especially when they find out they are talking to - God forbid - the architect's own son!

The film is as much a personal journey as it is an account of Kahn's grand architectural legacy and is above all about the fruition of the film itself and film-making in general. Perhaps Louis I. Kahn faltered as a father, but these shortcomings in his personal life make for an all the more interesting portrait in this extraordinary film.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10


After visiting the Kimbell museum in Forth-Worth, Texas, USA, enjoying the art and the architecture (also of the adjacent Modern Art Museum), and having a delightful conversation with the knowledgeable bookstore lady, I purchased this a propos DVD with rather high expectations and was not disappointed in the least.

The thematic approach, dramatic tension, revealing interviews, archival footage and stunning architecture are also mixed in a coherent whole to explore the life of the late iconic Louis I. Khan.

The documentary begins: contemplative classical music plays, archives are scanned with a reflective shadowy face superimposed, blurring letters symbolically referencing a train window passing a backdrop landscape  a journey , focus and out of focus, the search eventually culminates to an article in a newspaper. Nathanial Khan reads from the front page of the New York Times where his father is simultaneously praised as the best American architect alive and his death announced.

"When I first read that obituary, I have to admit, I was looking for my own name. I was his child too, his only son. I didn't know my father very well. He never married my mother and he never lived with us () He died when I was eleven."

So years later, this illegitimate son is still haunted by unclear fragmented thoughts and feelings about his father who seems to be a great professional and public figure, but who's secretive personal life escapes him and affects him to the point where he intends to do something about it.

"For years, I struggled to be satisfied with the little pieces of my father's life I've been allowed to see, but it wasn't enough. I needed to know him. I needed to find out who he really was. So I set out on a journey, to see his buildings and to find whatever there was left of him out there. It would take me to the other side of the world, looking for the man who left me with so many questions."

So the documentary is two-fold, by a slow systematic discovery of the world-renown architect, we get to know: 1) his ideas, buildings and the architectural perspective and 2) his families, coworkers, people's life he affected and the human perspective

The DVD also offers added insight with a Q&A with the writer/director and additional footage that includes such great Louis I. Khan quotes as "Everything that everybody says is the truth. It's their truth. It might not be factual." and "A good idea that doesn't happen is no idea at all."

This movie is a journey of discovery. Self-discovery and discovery of a man, a great man, yet a human, imperfect like all of us. We get to know him through the eyes of an admiring and slightly bitter son, but with the openness and objectivity to really explore without making easy conclusions and without judging.

By key interviews with people who interacted with him in various capacity. We slowly put some pieces together until that final interview with this man from Bangladesh who really seems to bring it back home with visceral and sensible comments.

Brilliant architect, brilliant documentary.


I never heard of architect, Louis Kahn, until this documentary. In this almost two hour documentary which goes very quickly, his son, Nathaniel Kahn, explores his father's life from Estonia to the slums of North Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia where he studied and taught. He travels to Bangladesh, Israel, Connecticut, Trenton, and La Jolla, California as well as New York City to explore his father's creative genius. Personally, Louis Kahn had three families including his wife, Esther, who refused to give him a divorce and their daughter Sue Ann. Nathaniel includes his family members. Louis also has another half-sister Alexandra Tynge from his father's previous relationship with Anne Tyne, a fellow architect. Louis' passion was his art.


Louis Khan was one of the most influential architects of our time, and this film speaks volumes about how little everyone really knew. His son's desire to find out who, and more importantly what he was is moving, and emotional.

This film captures the spirit of what architecture is really about, what good design is, and the emotional price that is paid for it. Equally haunting is the sound track. If you see the film, and then listen to the sound track you can revisit the film simply by listening. As a practicing architect of over 30 years, my heart ached and rejoiced over the film and its very straight forward, albeit emotional honesty and sincerity.

I had the honor of seeing this film previewed in Chicago at the National Convention of the American Institute of Architects. The film was introduced by Daniel, and he was kind enough to do a question and answer session afterward. During the entire presentation of the film, not a sound, not a cough, not one distraction took place. The entire audience sat mesmerized, and the real treat, was Daniel's mother was present during the showing of the film.

I will always remember the film, and play it over constantly in my mind every time I listen to the soundtrack...


I rented this film because it was a documentary and highly rated. It's more a study of a bastard son trying to find out who his biological father was, than anything about architecture.

More than anything else, the underlying theme of the movie is that we have an eccentric, highly praised, possibly genius architect who had little regard for anything or anyone outside is profession.

The tragedy of the film is the broken families he left. His baby-mothers came across more as scorned fans than irresponsible women, which can only have negative results on the children.

That said, Nathaniel, the producer of the film and son of Louis Khan, came across as fairly stable and curious, if not bitter. The people he interviewed were of course more interested in talking about Louis Khan's buildings than his personal problems, but I find the mix of themes made the film interesting.

As for his buildings, I found them like abstract art - strange, non-practical, and usually only appreciated by so-called critics.


i think the title of the movie describes it well. if you are looking for a documentary on louis kahn and his work, you'll have to look somewhere else. although some of that is covered in this film.

of course, i eat up pretty much anything i'm fed, and i don't know much of the family history revolving around this case. so i believed what i was told about nathaniel and his father, etc.

for what this movie was, i thought it was pretty good. a little slow and grabbing for attention at time, i wish that nathaniel would have focused a little more on his father's work than his family drama (although much of the history was interesting, louis was a bit of a player).

this really is a journey through someone's life, and i was happy to tag along for the experience. a learning experience for me, and so it seems, for the filmmaker as well.

oh, and the footage of some of kahn's work is *stunning*


An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.

Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat.


Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow

My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7

What a thing to be fatherless. "My Architect: A Son's Journey" follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.

Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.

We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret.

To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but "architect" is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.

Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.

The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.

Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.

In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.

It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.

April 28, 2005


I just returned from viewing this academy award-nominated doc, and I was thoroughly touched and interested in exploring the works of this fellow I'd never heard of before. Of course I'm someone who's captivated with beautiful architecture, so I realize others won't care.

We can only imagine if there had been a couple more visionaries in Philadelphia back in the late 60's when Kahn's plans were a possibility, what a wonderful city center there would be. If you wonder whether you'll see more about the Bangladesh building at the beginning of the movie, be patient, for there it will provide the climax of the film at the end.

His son's personal discoveries in the process of making this film are quite interesting, sometimes touching, and even funny at times. There is one of the most comical anti-visionary rants ever captured on camera.

Rounding out the good points of this doc is a touching musical score with some excellent expressive string music. And expressiveness is a major point to be found in Kahn's architecture. The points made by other architects about the spiritual nature of matter, and how Kahn's buildings brought that out tie together the overall experience of this movie.


Then again, I like Rachael Ray. She is fun, sweet, fresh, and such a joy to watch. I have to alter just about everything she makes as I am a vegetarian...but it's great to see her with a program that shows more of her personality. After all, she is a television personality. I think it's cool that she is so inviting with her fans and still appears to be down-to-earth. The studio audience appears to be rather small, but that just makes for a cozier environment. Some people have posted that the show sucks. I guess it depends on your own interpretation of it and of her. If you notice the early episodes of 30 Minute Meals you will see a completely different personality than in those of the past few years. I'm sure she will find her comfort zone with this show as well. Good luck Rachael!


I've been a fan of Rachael's since the beginning of 30MM on the Food Network, so I have seen her grow over the years. The minute I saw her interact with Oprah, I predicted that this show would happen, because I saw how taken Oprah is with her, and with good reason: she comes across as very natural, and willing to laugh at herself, which is very engaging. The set is appealing, and there are some fresh ideas (I love the lazy Susan that the audience sits on). There's just enough of a celebrity segment, and she stays away from controversy and debate (there's enough of that on daytime TV). The show is a lighthearted escape, and she hasn't moved away from her strength (cooking), which is very good planning. I know there are people who hate her and hate her show; that's OK, you can't please everybody. And somehow, I think Rachael knows and accepts that. So just turn the channel; I don't think she'd mind.


Rachael Ray appeals to viewers of all ages and backgrounds, beginner cooks or "seasoned" veterans. You'll be dazzled with a variegated presentation of delectable yet time-efficient dishes, jazzed up with her unique brand of spunk and candor. Most importantly, this hip chic keeps her audience drawn in by stimulating all five senses. Let me explain. Her program provides enlightenment to your visual sense, auditory sense, and sense of feeling through a rich, luminous ambient backdrop, light-hearted, casual, yet engaging topics, eye-pleasing, appetite wrenching meals, and her hearty smile and laugh, which will simmer down anyone's nerves.(Sense of smell and taste are rewarded when you test out the recipes in your own kitchen and among your own family and friends). Check out her show guys.


Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed.


OK, so I loved Rachael Ray before, but now, I ADORE her! How innovative. I love that she has a cooking section- I admit that occasionally I skip that part, only because it makes me WAAAY too hungry! But I also love that you can get the next day's grocery list on her website. I love that she has regular helpers and that she's made some of her viewers become her regulars. I love how personable she is and how creative she is. I also like how she does her Mystery Guests. She just seems so much more genuine than so many other talk show hosts. She still gets a little starstruck occasionally and I love that. I love that she talks about her personal life on there and reminds people how happy she is. She's even mentioned tabloids before and it's so funny! She also has the funniest stories! Anyway, I'm a fan for life. Even my 2 year old knows who Rachael Ray is and he loves her too!


One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.

What I got from this was the same as what I got from "The 400 Blows" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny ("I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.

The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word "gay" or "hustler." What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie "getting used" to the job.

Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.

The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, "woteva," and continues.

You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), "So...can you help me out?" The man says sure. "I don't mean my pants!" 10/10


I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.

Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.

Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!

The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).

Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.

FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".

As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")


In a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything I love about cinema, in terms of capturing those strange, elusive moments of unguarded truth. In other ways, it is undeniably an amateurish, unfocused result of junkies self-indulgently fooling around with a camera. Ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). Part of me wants to reward it solely for it's absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity, but at the same time I can't completely ignore the occasionally downright awful "acting" and overtly bad production values. At first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly "innovative"), but after a while I got used to it, which is, in the end, the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it's own terms or not. I guess that answer basically sums up my all-around feelings for the film. That is, despite it's in-ignorable flaws, on a whole it does work very well. And, if nothing else, a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux-documentary, shaky-cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable Roger Dodger). Here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation, and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look "cool".


Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.

The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.

There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.

Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.

Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.

At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.


A heap of human flesh lies asleep on a red pillow. This is the hunk of naked meat that is "Little Joe", a New York hustler who lives with his bisexual wife and baby child. The film follows a day in his life, after he's woken from sleep by his wife demanding that he go out and do the traditional male thing - be a breadwinner. But the use she wants to put the bread to is to pay for her new girlfriend's abortion. We certainly aren't in the traditional family unit here...

After playing with his child, Joe hits the streets to cruise for johns. The clients come thick and fast: the ordinary gay man who wants to meet him again because they "work well together", the old English classical scholar who pays $100 to see Joe pose like an ancient Greek athlete; the female topless dancer who blows Joe then boasts about being raped; the ageing gym bunny who doesn't think that what he and Joe do together is queer. After a hard day's work, Joe returns home exhausted, only to be put down by his wife and the girlfriend. He goes back to sleep as they harp and undermine him.

Flesh is fascinating as it takes what is a traditional classical mainstream structure - it has an inciting incident (the money for the abortion) and set-up, a confrontation and a resolution (albeit a very downbeat one), even a protagonist with a strongly motivated goal, and then proceeds to concentrate on the details of the day to day routine of these people who are perfectly ordinary to themselves but extraordinary to most "mainstream" people. It all seems very authentic and natural - it's hard to see the acting, the actors are so fully being their roles - but yet the whole thing is a piece of cunning artifice - a beautifully drawn portrait or an intricately carved statue. Director Morrissey carefully plants every incident, every encounter around his theme of human flesh become packaged commodity but with such cunning slight of hand that you almost don't notice him doing it. The wife "packages" Joe's sexual organ, the old Englishmen laments a long gone order of classical beauty which created art and poetry from human fleshly beauty, the transvestite friends of the stripper package themselves as women whilst reading a Hollywood magazine in which "real" women are packaged as products; the gym bunny buys Joe's friendship and affection, thinks artificial porn is real and can't tell, as we can't, that Joe is performing his friendship and intimacy for the cash. The film itself presents itself as the ne plus ultra of cinematic realism but what we might as well be dealing with here is fine art or an early example of concept art.

The genius - a word not lightly used - of Morrissey was to find a way of taking Warhol's arty pretensions to film-making, which were interesting sure but boring as hell, and making them into saleable products which remain amongst the most intriguing works of cinema art ever made - commercial cans labelled "Flesh" and "Trash" and "Heat" with a product label - "Andy Warhol" - which sells an idea about the product as much as the product itself. Yet just as you reel from Morrissey's cynicism, you are spellbound by his ability to still maintain the highest of standards and depth of meaning. The constant what seem like camera flashes continually draw attention to the filmic nature of what one is witnessing, yet you get drawn into the illusion all the same - Flesh is surely one of the most extraordinary pieces of cinema magic to ever spellbind an audience.


"Flesh" is hard to describe with a solid summary because, well, there basically isn't a plot. The film pretty much just shows the day in the life of a hustler named Joe (Joe Dallesandro, who is in the underrated Louis Malle picture "Black Moon") as he makes his rounds, sleeping and modeling around to cash in the bucks to pay for his wife's lover's abortion.

Not much, and since the film is quite a lengthy eighty-nine minutes, you would think that "Flesh" would be a slow-moving and boring hour and a half. You think wrong. The film is made up of improv, no screenplay and the angles of the film are pretty on-the-spot as well, yet there is some kind of truth beneath every frame that gives the film its dementedly entertaining vibrancy. Everything makes sense and serves purpose in what happens to Joe in this one day. He meets a regular john that is obviously lying when saying he wants to see Joe again, a photographer who talks so much that it bores Joe to tears, two drag queens who read out of tabloid magazines as Joe receives head from a mousy-voiced addict who mumbles on later about how she wants to get a breast lift, an old friend of Joe who reads male-on-male rape stories to him, and then a final scene with his wife and her lover that eerily echoes the scene at the start of the film (one of the best openings to a film I have seen in quite some time)  and tells completely what the film is overall philosophically about.

It's astounding how the film's messages and styles feel almost timeless, even though it's set in 1960s New York City, in real time, in real place, and is filmed like an obvious independent flick from that era. It's certainly not a film that could be made today, which adds on to its delicious mystique.

Fueled by unexpected jump cuts; and absent of a score to advance its images  "Flesh" is about as raw, gritty as a film about male prostitution in the 60s can get.


I was delighted to see this gem of a film available on DVD. Despite being a 'TV Movie' and shot on 16mm, it provided a wonderful insight into the different types of people who wanted to become a 'London cabbie', along with their foibles and family commitments. Even the most hapless of candidates, 'Titanic' with his uncommunicative wife, it was possible to see how Jack Rosenthal was able to craft an often funny and sometimes tragic snippet of London life into an entertaining 90 minutes.

Originally premiered as a vehicle for Mick Ford (pun intended), the quality of the acting from an ensemble cast including Michael Elphic, Nigel Hawthorne, Jonathan Lynn, Lesley Joseph and Maureen Lipman (Mrs Rosenthal) meant Mick may have had top billing, but he had to work hard in the face of such competing talents.

Even 15 years after its 1991 release, it is still as fresh as ever!


Just to correct something in a previous review here, I don't believe this film is only for people who know London, it's a case of a very specific situation being used to make universal comments. Jack Rosenthal says in an introduction to the published script that it was meant to be about characters who, by going though this gruelling Knowledge test, gain some measure of self-knowledge.

I think it's one of the most perfectly-written dramas I've seen: technically it's supremely adept at conveying quite complex details but it's also joyous in how it involves you. At the start you know no more about this London Knowledge test than the main characters but you get scooped up right along with them until it's vitally important to you. You become tremendously proud of those characters who succeed, and you are crushed for those who don't. Especially one whose downfall, without giving anything anyway, will make your hands fly to your face.

Also just as a point of fact, Nigel Hawthorne's character, Mr Burgess, is called the Vampire, not Dracula. You don't need to know this, I'm not saying it's crucial, but it's a measure of the drama: once you've seen this, you will want everyone to and you will evangelise about its every detail.

I hope you get to see it.

William


I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!


I first saw "The Knowledge" during a Thames Television marathon on one of the local independent stations in Los Angeles back when it was new. I enjoyed it very much along with danger UXB.

That a movie I saw once over twenty year ago should stick so well in my memory is a testament to it's originality and the quality of the performances by the cast.

I looked for a DVD copy here in the U.S.A. And found none. I finally gambled and bought a UK DVD off Ebay and was delighted to find that it has no Region Code. So those of us that would like to see this little gem can get a copy.


As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched "The Knowledge" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.

Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).

As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.

All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of "The Knowledge".


The Knowledge is a typical British comedy for the period. To someone who is not familiar of the process of becoming a London cabby the film is bound to seem very average with a few laughs from a few old faces.

The Knowledge however comes into its own for Knowledge boys like myself or their wife's who know what these poor individuals are going through. And find yourself comparing incidents of your own to that of the characters.


Thank goodness for the Coen Brothers. Their success has brought them bigger budgets,but hasn't rid them of their creativity. I had planned on seeing another movie, but it was sold out so I went to this one instead. By the time it began, I had forgotten what movie I was there to see. I was surprised in more ways than one. This movie is hilarious, but they don't make any cheap jokes just to get the laughs. The writing is brilliant, and delivered with great skill by George Clooney (after this, nobody can say he's just a pretty face) and the rest of the cast. It can be appreciated on many levels, whether you remember the Odyssey or not. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was this clever. I've seen others I would describe as beautiful, intriguing, funny and charming, all of which also describe "Oh Brother," but this movie reminded me of older seinfeld episodes where all the subplots came together in the end. You can feel that their journey is building up to something, but you can't tell what. And the Coen brothers do not fail us, the end is certainly not disappointing. It's surprising, and ties up all the loose ends neatly, without wearing the story out.


The Coen Brothers have truly outdone themselves in this wonderful saga of three escaped convicts. Though it is based on "The Odyssey," the ancient work of Homer, you do not have to have read "The Odyssey" to be able to follow the story. The brothers Coen have woven a tapestry of celluloid and aural delights! The soundtrack is intrinsic to the film, indeed it is as though the soundtrack is the product and the film is wrapping paper. Each character is wonderfully exploited and harkens back to the days of old when films were rich with character actors whose very appearance in the film adds richness, texture and authenticity. George Clooney is magnificent as the grease haired Everett Ulysses McGill, a honest con on the run whose pompous linguistics and vocabulary are comical and endearing. O Brother, Where Art Thou is easily the best Coen film to date as well as Clooney's best effort. Clooney is good enough to warrant a best actor nomination as is Tim Blake Nelson's portrayal of the dimwitted friend Delmar, while the film itself is deserving of a Best film nod.


Not being a fan of the Coen Brothers or George Clooney, anyone can see the skepticism I took into the theater. Once again, someone in Hollywood dares to create something different. This time it was those zanie (for a temporary lack of a better word) Coens doing "their thing" to one of the great works in literary history. Who would've ever thought Homer had this in mind? I don't know where this film is going to fit in the history books of Hollywood, but it will be in both mine and many others DVD or VHS library. It is one of those films that you can watch over and over. The story is brilliantly written. Clean and entertaining, with a couple of Gumpesque brushes with fame, great performances by Clooney, Turturro, Nelson, and a brief but hilarious Holly Hunter. Being born in Mississippi and raised in other parts of the south, I wish more people would poke a little fun at us like this. They even invoke a soundtrack fitting for the rural south. You are NOT doing anything better this weekend, go see this movie!


I have walked out of a Coen movie before and not quite known how to feel. The two best examples of that are The Big Lebowski and Fargo. Lebowski was so ridiculously original and so filled with strange humour that I had to like it. On the other hand, there were some unnecessary reveries with flying people and killer bowling balls that just didn't seem to fit the mold of the film. Still, I liked the film and now own a copy of it. Fargo made me howl with hysterics, sometimes I wasn't sure why I was laughing so hard that it made me cry, but nonetheless I was. There were many seemingly strange characters in Fargo, but upon further investigation, they were really just real people talking about real situations. That is why the man with the shovel ( or was it a broom ) was so side-splittingly funny when he was telling the police officer about some funny looking man down at the bar the other night. And that is also why the theater erupted in laughter when he then says that there are some funny looking clouds coming in. (I own a copy of this film too) The Coen's have a way of masking their film and their characters as being somewhat eccentric and perhaps a little off the wall. But if you look closer at some of those same characters that seem zany, you will always find that in some strange way, they all ring true. That is what is quite exceptional about O Brother Where Art Thou? This is a film that is out there. I mean it is not even in the same ballpark as a traditional film. I reviewed the film Shaft this past summer and in it I said that Shaft was an okay film that I have seen a thousand times before. But you can not say that about a Coen Brother's film and you most certainly can not say that about this one.

This film has everything in it from a jail break, crooked southern politicians, muses, references to what I can only assume are historical figures, riverside baptisms, bank robberies, violence towards animals, singing flocks of religious fanatics, KKK, lynch mobs and so on. There are obviously many references to Homer's Odyssey in here as well, but I wouldn't know that because I have never read Homer's Odyssey or even knew one thing about it. Every other newspaper reviewer seems to know all about it and they think that this cynicism and almost spoof-like quality towards it makes the film that much better. Well coming from a guy who doesn't know anything about it, I can tell you that it is still an entertaining film. There were times when again, as is usual for a Coen film, I wasn't sure why I was entertained or laughing, but I was.

This is a road picture where three men travel along the way to find a hidden treasure that Clooney says he has hidden to his two other cell mates. He has to take them along because they were also chained to him when they had their chance to escape.

I like all the principal actors in the film and many of them are Coen cronies. It was nice to see Goodman again. It was nice to see Hunter and especially Turturro who seems to have a place in every Coen film. It's too bad they didn't find a place for Steve Buscemi but that is a different story all together. But back to Clooney. The man just has charisma. He is a one hell of an actor as well and here he is not quite as zany as the others but even he has his own idiosyncrasies. His work here is quite awesome and I really hope this shows that he is capable of playing any range of character.

Now after heaping all this praise on the film, let me just say this as well. I didn't really enjoy the film at first. I found it to be quite tedious and a little boring. There were too many ideas in here and not enough care went into harnessing them for all what they were worth. But then the film began to grow on me. It took a while but it did grow on me. I don't think this is their best film, but it is still a good one and I am giving it a 8.5. But the reason that I do recommend this film is for one reason only.

Every day you can go look into the paper and look at the films that are playing and say to yourself, seen it, seen it, oh, seen it last year, that is the same as this film and that is the same as that film. Most films have been recycled in some form or another. Not the Coen's films. They have not been recycled and if they have I don't know about it. That is reason enough to see something that they put out. Originality counts for a lot in my books. The Coens are original and they are good. And that is not common in todays cinema. Enjoy them while they are allowed to make films. Because you don't get vision like this in many films, so when you do, enjoy it!


Having seen most of the Coen Brothers previous films I expected something different and slighty off centre. OBWAT is certainly those things, but it also has a heart as big as..well..as big as Mississippi. It is one of the most plainly enjoyable movies to have come out in recent times, intelligent, well-crafted, clever and superbly acted.

Characters are delivered in their myriad shades by a group of marvellous actors. George Clooney winning me over completely with his Clark Gable-ish looks and character. Having only ever seen him in Three Kings and his Thin Red Line cameo, I am now a fan. More comedy please George.

John Tuturro and Tim Blake Nelson ably assist, especially Nelson. If ever "The Simpsons" is made into a movie then he must be a natural to play Cletus the slack-jawed yokel. I don't think there is a performance that falls short of excellent from the entire cast. My special favorite is Stephen Root as the blind Radio Station Man.

Great old-timey music, a jiggy type dance by Clooney that I am trying to learn, and a feel of depression era southern US enhanced by sepia-like photography make this the best movie I've see so far this century. The only drawback to the film is that it has almost sent me broke buying the soundtrack, the DVD and a DVD player to play it on....it's THAT good!


This was the best film I saw in the year 2000. The Cohen brothers have never let me down before, and they certainly didn't this time either.

It's one of those rare movies these days - it's witty, intelligent and vastly entertaining. I left the cinema with a warmth in my heart. Of course, there's lot of Cohen stuff in there - odd characters and peculiar gadgets, well-developed plot and magic camerawork. But no Cohen film is resembling any other Cohen film, if you overlook the general quality of them, of course.

The big surprise for me was that Clooney is so good. But the true master performance in this movie comes from Tim Blake-Nelson. But the rest of the cast is superb too.

A film that is lightweight comedy with a musical touch that evolve it's story round rednecks and old time country music - dripping with wit and intelligence. Thats a very unlikely combination. But it's exactly what this picture is.


I was into the movie right away. I've seen the other Coen movies, with the exception of Raising Arizona, and I've noticed that each of their movies has a color. Fargo is gray/white, Lebowski is bright orange, and this movie is a pleasant yellow.

The bright pleasant qualities of this movie start right away. Soon the look is accompanied by the great, great music. It's the old folk sound, the kind of music that was written during a time when music was enjoyed as a part of day to day life. Enjoyed by everyone, chain-gangs, church choirs, and even prison escapees.

Now, about the prison escapees. I don't know what crime their characters could have possibly committed, as they are a very very friendly group of guys. Clooney is fantastic, completely nailing his role.

Go see this as soon as possible. I believe that it can be enjoyed by anyone at some level. For some reason, the theater I was in was full of old ladies and old men, and they loved it.

You'll love it too, I promise. I was compelled to get my hands on the soundtrack right away.


The Coen Brothers have done it again. Three depression era convicts(George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson)escape a Mississippi chain gang and head off in search of buried treasure that will fund their new lives. Along the way, they sing on the radio and become much sought after stars as well as escapees. Great laughs and a soundtrack that is a lesson/introduction to bluegrass music.

Clooney is outstanding as the fast talking, quick witted Ulysses Everett McGill. Holly Hunter plays his estranged wife. Turturro and Nelson are flawless stumblebums. Also in the cast are John Goodman and Charles Durning.

Dan Tyminksi provides the singing voice for George Clooney on "I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow", the Soggy Bottom Boys song that serves as a template for the bluegrass laden soundtrack that also features Alison Krauss, Ralph Stanley, The Whites, John Hartford, The Cox Family and Gillian Welch. Toe tapping, knee slapping fun for the whole family. You'll be surprised with how relaxed and funny this movie is.


My husband received DVD of OBWAT for Christmas and it was the best gift we received! We watch it every time we need to laugh and so far we have viewed it 12 times!The scenery in this movie is beautiful and the music is outstanding!We also purchased the soundtrack and we play it in our vehicles and at home when ever we need a pick me up and that too is daily!If anyone needs a suggestion for a good gift for movie lovers this movie is it!The characters are hilarious , charming , and their facial expressions are too funny to describe!I have always been a fan of George Clooney but now I am also a fan of Tim Blake Nelson(Delmar ) and John Turturro (Pete)and am now looking for them in other movies! You gotta see this movie!!!


This film makes Clooney. All his films combined before this have all been based on the same character. This film he transcends his previous body of work and proves his capability as a top notch actor. The soundtrack defeats most one-handedly. The brothers have truly made a classic. One to own and watch repeatedly.


The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure.


About the discussion on the South, the rednecks and the hillbillies... Well, I am from the South: Argentina, near the South Pole to be exact. Is this southern enough? Seriously, some stories are universal. We have never been to Greece, nor lived the classic period of Homer, but he speaks to us today. So does Shakespeare and Dante. And stories from far unknown places also reach us, when told with sensibility, intelligence, humor, just like "O Brother". Besides, we all (the rest of the world) have our own hillbillies too! And our own depression era (ever heard of Argentina during year 2001?), our politicians and racism, our gentle souls just like Delmar and Tommy... I simply loved this movie, folks. Despite the subtitles, despite being on the other side of the world. (And please forgive my errors in English, I tried my best)

PS: I believe nobody quoted this favorite phrase: when Delmar asks George Nelson what does he do for a living, while handling him the machine gun...


I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale.

I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.

I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors.


I originally saw this several years ago while I was sitting on the couch and got stuck watching it on HBO. With the remote out of my reach I decided to go with it and was awaiting a miserable movie that I had been avoiding for a year. So it started off and I wasn't very optimistic about it, but after about ten minutes I found myself laughing. The complete opposite as I was expecting. The comedy was smart, the acting pretty good considering, the cast worked very well together, and the story (though slightly awkward and fake) was actually quite entertaining.

Three convict brothers manage to escape their sentence and eventually go in search of their fortune. The movie is set in the 1930's. So along the way, they encounter a number of funny and interesting charatcers. All have a different story or achievement they are striving for. Really the majority of the movie may seem random. Some may say it was pointless and boring, but if you look for the smart comedy (and occasionally stupid) that is integrated into the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one.

I liked the performances given by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson. All of them did very well in their roles, an they worked great together. But to finish this off, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a smart, funny, and a movie adventure that I wouldn't let pass up.


I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10


They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.

This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from "Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame" to "I don't understand, Big Dan." Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.

Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing.


This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart


Great movie, great actors, great soundtrack! I loved it! Settings are perfect, dialogues, situations, storyline... all together mixed to give this masterpiece! Clooney and Turturro are magnificent and the Soggy Bottom Boys are simply charming and contagious with their music! :)


I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.

I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).

There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.

Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-Chris


The Coen's strike again. I had no presuppositions going in and I was amazed at the bizarre telling of a good-bad guy story. Although Clooney is easily replaceable in this, his cornball style is welcome. Turturro and Nelson are dead ringers. And I loved "I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow" as performed by the "Soggy Bottom Boys". Catchy tune...

8 of 10


'O Brother, Where Art Thou' is a gleeful retelling of Homer's 'Odyssey', set in 1930s Mississippi and rampant with splendid quirkiness that is the trademark of the brothers Coen. Three hapless convicts make their escape to find treasure--and more than their share of adventure--in this delightful film. George Clooney is in fine, ingenuous form as the chatty, amiable leader of the trio; but the real acting kudos go to John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson as his goofy but lovable cohorts, dubbed the 'Soggy Bottom Boys' by Clooney's character after they receive baptism by full immersion in a river. The three cut a record under that homespun nom-de-plume for the cash, and unwittingly become overnight sensations with veritable 'rock star' status. The film is accompanied by enough music and songs to almost qualify it as a musical. And there are some incredible feats of film-making here: the scene at the KKK rally is a real doozy, and is so similar to the scene when Dorothy's friends rescue her from the witch's castle in 'The Wizard of Oz' that it almost amounts to cinematic plagiarism. And what an amazing work of plagiarism it is! Without giving away the ending, I must say the climax of the movie is one of the most breathtaking sequences put to film in recent memory (on a par with the spectacular finale of 'Magnolia', another one of my favorites). 'O Brother' is a must-see, a perfect 10!


This has got to be the best movie I've seen. You definately have to watch it more than once to find all of the humor and twists. I'm no fan of George Clooney, but he shines here. The real performance comes from Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro as Pete and Delmar. One of the few movies that I own.


After seeing the 'oh so acclaimed' Fargo and thinking it was nothing more than average, I was wandering if it would be a good idea to rent another Coen 'masterpiece'. This time I was much less disappointed than I was with Fargo and I must say that most of the credit for that goes to the good jokes and the good acting of George Clooney. Well done Mr. Clooney, make more of these and less 'Perfect Stormish' movies. You can act and you showed it here.

7 out of 10