Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the "suspense" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience.


I came out of "Rendition" with a list of flaws a mile long, so how is it that my overall impression is that it was a pretty decent movie? It's definitely a film whose sum is better than its parts.

Those parts include a cast of big name stars, not one of them giving a memorable performance (Omar Metwally, a relative unknown, is the one you'll remember); serviceable if undistinguished direction; and a screenplay that's both too complicated and too simplistic at the same time. Metwally is an Egyptian-born American citizen who gets kidnapped by the U.S. government's rendition program, otherwise known as the process by which America tortures suspected terrorists into confessing information whether or not it's remotely true. Reese Witherspoon plays his pregnant wife, who calls in the favor of an old college friend (Peter Saarsgard), who works for a senator (Alan Arkin) and helps to track her husband down. Meryl Streep plays the head of the rendition program; Jake Gyllenhaal is a young agent assigned to the interrogation and whose conscience gets in the way. Meanwhile, a whole parallel storyline follows the daughter of a top Egyptian official who is allied to the American rendition program and her boyfriend, who's in training to become a suicide bomber.

Ay-yi-yi that's a lot of plot to pack into a two-hour movie, and I was about to wash my hands of the whole thing, especially the Egyptian Romeo and Juliet subplot that felt like nothing more than a distraction. But then near the film's finale, a twist of chronology brings all of the plot strands together in a way that makes you want to reassess everything you thought you knew about the motivations of the various characters, and makes "Rendition" a much more interesting movie than it seems like it's going to be.

Witherspoon, Gyllenhaal and Sarsgaard all look like high school students playing adults twenty years older than they actually are -- Gyllenhaal in particular, usually a fine actor, looks so bored that you wonder if he's going to muster the energy to deliver his lines. And the screenwriter should be arrested for having an actress as good as Meryl Streep at his disposal and giving her nothing more to work with than this one-dimensional dragon lady. The movie of course strives for relevancy, but instead of addressing the tangled web of arguments surrounding the national security issue, it charges right down the middle of the debate in a predictable fashion. There are moments when you think maybe the film will veer off in an interesting direction -- what if Witherspoon did actually begin to doubt her husband's past, for instance? What if Metwally actually had been in contact with terrorists, as his interrogators accuse? But no, the movie takes the path of least resistance.

But, like I said upfront, I recommend this movie. I know I've done nothing but list a bunch of its faults, but it's got its head in the right place, and it is entertaining, or at least as as entertaining as a movie about torture and interrogation can be.

Grade: B+


RENDITION is a film not to miss with solid writing from Kelley Sane and with the direction of Gavin Hood that takes us on a story which is a ride through a man's journey through hell. Once again, Meryl Streep in a convincing role of the CIA today and great performances from a cast of superlative actors in Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhall and Alan Arkin, along with actors of Middle Eastern descent who add to the reality of the story.

In RENDITION you see how "terrorism can breed terrorism" and as the film progresses tying the story to what is playing out in the Middle East is reality brought to the screen. The external shots add to the intensity of the story and Peter Sarsgaard does a brilliant job of playing an Assistant in the "ass kissing" way of how American politics are conducted. Too bad there has not been a larger audience for this film, as along with THE VALLEY OF ELAH and LIONS FOR LAMBS, RENDITION plays an important role in showing an audience how the fight for and the protection of democracy can go seriously astray.


An Arab American man is kidnapped from an American Airport and flown to "somewhere in North Africa" where he is tortured. The reason? His cell phone received a call from a known terrorist. The CIA decides to avoid legal means to determine whether the phone call is implication of guilt or just a mistake. After watching this movie we can only but pray some terrorist doesn't accidentally punch in a wrong number!

In addition to the rendition there are several related side stories. One involves the daughter of the chief of intel (secret police?) who is torturing the suspect, and her involvement with her lover who happens to be in night school for suicide bombers. This story is way too contrived, but nevertheless intriguing, especially when we see it's outcome. The Director uses a neat time line switcheroo to hook the audience.

The second side story is the attempt by the suspects wife to find out what happened to her missing husband. She gets an old lover to help. He (a muted Saarsgard) is aide de camp to a Senator (Alda) and soon gets cold feet when he realizes that his job isn't worth uncovering the truth. Witherspoon is wasted in this role. All she gets to do is look forlorn and pregnant, with one brief rage attack. Streep is good and cold and stereotypical as the govt. (CIA?NSA?Homeland Sec?) official who seems to be a Cheney clone.

Gylenhall also is wasted as a minor analyst pushed into in area he's over his head in, although he gets to do the "right thing" in the end.

I found the movie engrossing, if somewhat languorous, but thought it added little to the subject. It is certainly not to be viewed as definitive, and it certainly has an axe to grind. Like "The Kingdom" it scratches the surface of a very complicated subject.

The movie tries hard to give us an idea about rendition, but can only end up by being a "cautionary tale" about one botched one. The whole point of rendition is not to "torture" but to get "terror suspects" to give intel by avoiding legal (therefore obstructive) barriers. Torture, for sure, may be employed, especially if the rendition is out of our hands - although we are obviously not guiltless in this matter - but intel that can save lives is vital in this "shadow war."


We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.

When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says "The United States does not torture" it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply "snatch" you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him.

Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast.


When going to see Rendition, I was expecting an exciting film on a controversial topic with big-name actors. I was not expecting a film that was so engrossing, exciting, poetic, and sad that picked me up from the very beginning and didn't let me go, even after I left the theater. A word of advice to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't let your politics come in the way of enjoying (or not enjoying) this film. Take it for what it is. I saw this with my conservative Jewish family (I'm the black sheep, the pseudo-liberal college student) and I thought they would write it off as "liberal propaganda". Instead, they said it was a great film with excellent performances (they like to fancy themselves film critics).

It's sad that a movie like this has to be marketed by its Oscar-affiliated actors, while leaving out the constantly underrated Sarsgaard as well as new talent like the truly excellent Metwally. The entire cast gave good performances, with some standing out much more than others; my only problem with it was that there was a lot going on which didn't allow for much screen time for each of the characters. In fact, I felt like the "sub-plot" with Fatima and Khalid was just as prominent on screen as Anwar's part of the story.

The characters all have the potential to fall into stereotypes, but the actors do a good enough job to give them depth with the little screen time they have. Streep is truly terrific, as a heartless senator, and as much as I don't want to see the actress in such a terrible role its impossible not to believe her. Gyllenhaal, who will probably be one of the Oscar nods for this movie, seems a bit unsure in his role at times. H's trying to portray his inner conflict but usually just comes off like he either forgot his lines or he doesn't know how he should feel. Sarsgaard gave an excellent performance; his unforgettable confrontation with Streep is easily one of the best parts of the movie. Metwally, again, was terrific, and I hope to see him in more mainstream films. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal with probably get nominated before him. Yigal Naor, as shown on IMDb, has been is some films already but he is a newcomer in my eyes. He, along with Mohammed Khouas and Zineb Oukach, all gave great performances.

The story of Fatima and Khalid was not given any credit in commercials, but it brings a sad humanity to the story. The narrative was interesting as I was trying to really connect the two story until it was plainly told to us at the end. I've read some comments on here that say the love story was useless, but I disagree. I think it definitely shows another side to the controversial issue as well as humanity in general. Khalid was the real terrorist, but he was doing it to avenge his brother, and even though he is responsible for the attack, you see a humane side to him through the story with Fatima. Not that I think we should feel bad for actual terrorists, but I think the "we are all people" theme was definitely relevant.

Whatever your feelings on terrorism, politics, etc. leave it out of the theater. The bottom line is this is an interesting story with a message we all need to hear.


This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played.


Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.

The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.


"Labyrinth of Passion"--with the possible exception of "Matador "--is Almodovar's best film. It displays his unique personality at its best and least-censored, before he started going more mainstream. Almodovar is just about the only modern director that can approach Preston Sturges' wonderful brand of lunacy. It's pointless to try and explain what the movie is about, the real point being Almodovar's willingness and skill in taking his situations to the outer limits of sanity, and sometimes of plausibility and taste as well.


I was delighted when I saw that my husband rented "Labyrinth of Passion". I love Almodovar's films. We both loved the movie. We both couldn't stop laughing. We especially enjoyed the scene in which the transvestite is shooting a photo novel, and while supposedly being menaced by a killer with an electric drill, is told to answer the phone and say, "I can't talk to you right now, I'm being attacked by a sadistic serial killer. If I survive I will call you back". (That would make a great answering machine message come to think of it). We also loved the lady telling her new found beloved, "I went to an orgy after the concert but I couldn't stop thinking of you." (I'm waiting to use that line on Twitter). "Labyrinth of Passion" is a rollicking farce with plenty of high jinks, hilarious dialog and eye candy for everyone. The film has aged well: the 1980s costumes and hairdos add to the wackiness. I would give it a 10 out of 10 rating but I am giving it a 8 for two reasons. The first is the scene which involves laxatives which includes a shot of a lady soiling herself: totally unnecessary, and it brings down the tone of the film to Hollywood gross-out comedy for a moment. The second is the suggestion that Queti is sleeping with her father: shocking, yes, but again, it ruins the tone of the film. Still, I would recommend the film to anyone who wants a sophisticated, spicy, and fun time.


Up front, if you're tired, the first hour could be slow. The set up of the story has a natural leisurely pace, unhurried - giving us time to appreciate the kind of everyday life and situations the main characters are in. Once you arrived at the climatic segment of the storyline, the turn of events will keep you hooked: how will things turn out, what will happen to our precious Fanda (portrayed to utter quiet perfection by the veteran Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský), how will his wife (wonderfully played by Stella Zázvorková) treat him, what happens to Fanda's dear friend Ed (played by Stanislav Zindulka - a matching sidekick to Brodský), and Jára the son with selfish hidden agenda, blind to the kindness of his parents (sigh!)

Vladimír Michálek sensibly directed the film with sprinkles of humor, preserving the insightful script by Jirí Hubac. Thanks to clear subtitling, I was able to notice for every 'complaining' phrase Fanda's wife utters, there's a hint of 'caringness' showing/buried in between the lines - and so did the judicious lady judge observed. Fanda is '76 going on 80' and the affection of their enduring (endearing) marriage manifests even in their bantering arguments. His playfulness can be infectious.

This is 'Growing Old Together 101' for (at least) the beyond fifties, and lessons learned to sons and daughters not to take parents for granted. One may need to rethink if assuming 'home for the aged' is a means to an end, so to speak. The film is gently shouting to us to live life to the fullest while we can. (Hint: there's joy in staying on and watch the end credits roll.)

We're fortunate to be able to see an occasional Czech film. The Sverák ("Kolya") father & son's 2001 "Dark Blue World" was revealing with pathos. It's good to take it slow now and then and appreciate a foreign gem - its subtitles, scenery, melodic score and an engaging human story with elegant performances. "Autumn Spring" (aka Babí Léto) is available on DVD. Enjoy!


As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy.


Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's "Divided We Fall (2000)", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see.


This is a charming movie to say the least. The main character, Fanda, is an old man who refuses to be among the living dead by which he is surrounded. He and his accomplice go around pulling pranks and getting into trouble all over town. Meanwhile his family is up in arms about what to do with him. From there you see Fanda's relationships with his wife, best friend and son develop. It finally leads up to one of the best movie endings I have ever seen.

The characters in this movie are rich and deep. They develop well through the course of the film. The movie has quite a range of moods. It goes from light and funny to grim and dark. Any slow parts for you in this film will be made up for in the end.

Autumn Spring carries a similar message like a lot of other European movies do -- don't lose sight of the small pleasures in life. If you enjoyed Amelie, The Eighth Day or Life is Beautiful (all great films BTW), you will probably like this movie.

8.5/10


To qualify my use of "realistic" in the summary, not many old folks I know go around pretending to be famous maestros, blind people, etc. -- nor have I ever been elderly. Those minor issues out of the way, the relationships between the characters in this film and the emotions expressed therein were completely realistic and genuine. In fact, though we're not yet 30, I could see many characteristics of my relationship with my wife in the interactions between the main character and his wife. For those that don't die young (there's a great line in the movie about this, when the two best friends are talking about dying young, and one of them says--and I'm paraphrasing, we missed our chance--we'll just have to stick it out), we'll all be where these characters are some day. I know many movie-goers would prefer to be swept *away* from reality as opposed to being *faced* with it, but even they might enjoy the sweet reminder of our mortality--and the importance of living life to the fullest--that this film is.


This is a FANTASTIC film. Hána is a very old guy with a very young heart. He knows how to live his live fully everyday by teaming up with his friend making pranks on just about everything, even his own death. While his wife can't deal with his "irresponsible" behavior, she also knows that it's exactly why she loves her husband for almost half century. I would love to hang out with this old guy because he knows how to enjoy live and never fear of death. He is joyful, witty, mischievous, and never boring. Vlastimil Brodský brilliantly played Hána at the age of 79. Every look from his eyes and every move from his aging muscles deliver so much about the character to the audience. This is a film that leaves a big smile on my face afterwards, and it makes me look at my own live a little closer. Tomorrow I am gonna go and buy myself a mansion and have some fun. If Hána can, so can I. But I think I will skip the smoking part.


Not much to say other than it is simply a masterpiece. this film contains a myriad of messages that all should take to heart. especially- women do not squelch your man's dreams -honor them -that's why you loved him in the first place! Those who plan for death will live in the grave. Those who carpe diem will awaken those who live in fear. Even our Lord spoke of this when he chastised the the one who buried his talent in fear that he might make a mistake and displease the Master. Take a risk, get out of the boat and you will walk on water. Life is a journey that does not end in the grave but in our minds and souls.


This film just won the best film award at the Cleveland International Film Festival. It's American title apparently is Autumn Spring. The acting is superb. The story takes you into the life of an elderly man who takes what life deals him and spikes it up a little bit. Abetted by his best friend (and partner in not-so-serious crime) he puts people on at every opportunity but still often reveals his heart of gold. His longsuffering wife has come to her wits end and makes a life-changing decision which is heartbreaking to watch. The resolution of the story is beautiful.


"Autumn Spring" tells of the misadventures of a dapper, walrus faced, 78 (approx) year old Czech man who haplessly befuddles and bemuses all who know him with his mischievous ways while his wife meticulously plans her funeral. Centerpiece Hana (Brodský) shows us how to get babes to kiss you when your 78 and how to cop a feel in an elevator and get thanked for it as he pranks his way from day to day in this warm and glowing look at old age and one man's creative, amusing, but socially unacceptable ways of enjoying life while refusing to be relegated to the old folk's home. "Autumn Spring" is a plodding, subtle comedy with messages for all ages which will have the greatest appeal with more mature foreign film buffs. (B+)


I found this film to be one of those great heart-warming gems. The story line is tightly woven and the character development throughout fantastic! I am a big fan of non-US films anyway and this is right up there with: "Happenstance," "The Closet" even "King of Hearts." Vlastimil Brodsky as Fanda, is fantastic. It is a love story in the true sense of loving life and the twists and turns it takes to get the viewer to understand/enjoy Fanda's view of life (which nearly costs him

more than he is prepared to give) are wonderful. His co-star Stelle Zazvorkova is unforgettable as his fed-up wife. I highly recommend this movie for the whole family--my children loved it.


The main cast:

Vlastimil Brodský .... Frantisek Hána Stella Zázvorková .... Emílie Hánová Stanislav Zindulka .... Eda

Director Vladimir Michalek gives this charming story of elderly folks enchanting twists that make the characters appealing, really universal.

Frantisek Hana is retired and on a pension, his previous occupation unknown. He lives in a very nice apartment with his wife of forty-four years, Emilie. His son Jara covets the spacious apartment as a problem-solver as he needs to house one of his ex-wives and several of their children. The son isn't a vicious schemer, just a guy with one past spouse too many and a blind eye to the attachment his dad has for the flat (which he moved into after relinquishing a previous residence to the son).

Hana and his also elderly close friend, Ed, spend there more than ample free time doing small con jobs not for money but for the pleasure of putting one over on easily duped folks like estate agents. A favorite ploy is for Hana to act the part of a retired divo of New York's Metropolitan Opera returning home in need of a sprawling mansion. Ed is his companion as gullible realtors fall all over themselves proffering chauffeured limousines and fine French restaurant meals in hope of a lucrative sale.

When not engaged in well-planned scams, the duo engage in quick ploys such as pretending to be railroad security agents so as to snatch kisses from breathless and ticketless teens trying to sneak onto trains. Chaste kisses, that is: there's no lechery here.

Hana's long-suffering wife is obsessed with saving enough money to insure that the couple, individually and jointly, have a grand funeral, an event the life-loving Frantisek is in no hurry to experience.

Disagreements about money and Frantisek's promiscuous disposition of marital funds lead to a crisis whose resolution rings both real and endearing. Michalek fishes for the viewer's emotions but he does it openly, honestly and effectively.

"Autumn Spring," subtitled of course, is a product of an increasingly vibrant Czech cinema. It wasn't shown widely in the U.S. but its availability on DVD will, hopefully, bring this affecting flick to a wide audience. Sadly, Brodsky recently succumbed to cancer so this movie is a valedictory to a fine actor who imbued his character with a passion for life's pleasures that must have reflected the actor's own values.

9/10.


The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, "Fanda laughs at funerals and death." In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed.

The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him.

It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy.

Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, "a living corpse." The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like hera zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing.

I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with deathbe it literal or figurativepeople awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others.


1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.


Possibly the best John Travolta role ever. Saturday Night Fever was a great movie & role, but a LONG time ago. I can't think of many of his movies or roles I've even liked, and it's easy to think of rotten ones. He can do meanies like in Pulp Fiction, but he makes the perfect funky angel, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing a better (equally slobby) job with it. Plot summaries are available everywhere, but the plot isn't the point. Just go for the ride and enjoy the cleverness of the little funnies along the way. There is nothing to dislike about this movie, unless one is searching for something profound. I wish there were more movies like this. We need a break from deep or awesome or grisly or complex or hysterical.


Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.


I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.


John Travolta was excellent as "Michael" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very "human angel" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!


This is one of my favorite "Capra-esque" comedies. This movie is just meant to be enjoyed, not deconstructed, microscopically analyzed. It's not religious commentary. It's fun. It's fantasy. The surprisingly negative comments (IMHO) reflect a level of expectation that professional film critics have led us to think must be a part of every movie.

Others have described Travolta's role (it's the reason you'll watch the movie over and over) and the excellent supporting cast (including Sparky!).

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a movie is just fun.

Enjoy!


Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it.

John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.

Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.

So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun.


This is another of John Travolta's "come back" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.

This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in "Dogma." (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)

Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.

I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.

It rates a 7.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Continuing his comeback, John Travolta played a mildly twisted angel in "Michael". He may be a messenger of God, but he's not the nicest guy, as reporters Andie MacDowell and William Hurt discover. When I first saw this movie, it was before I had started watching "All in the Family", so I didn't recognize Jean Stapleton as Edith Bunker. Now that I recognize her like that, I try to imagine Archie snapping at her for harboring an angel (whom he would probably rank alongside blacks, Jews, etc).

I know, that doesn't really relate to the movie. But I just like to associate things that way. Anyway, it's a pretty interesting movie. Also starring Bob Hoskins, Teri Garr and Richard Schiff.

What John and Paul said...


Michael is probably too cutesy for most action movie fans and too Hollywood for the intellectual crowd but I found it both extremely funny and very touching, despite it being both cutesy and formulaic.

When three skeptics are sent to investigate a man claiming to be an angel they end up escorting him on a grand tour of the mid-western country side only to find that it is each of their own hearts that need investigation.

When taking this film apart, as with most films today, there isn't a lot of new material but when taken as a whole it has a refreshingly original approach and is off-beat enough to entertain one all the way through.

While not being a "Family" film it is suitable for all ages and a good film to share with the whole family or that special someone.

"Michael" isn't a great film but it certainly is a good film, a touching film, and well worth seeing.

KWC


Though this film doesn't stand out particularly from the movie crowd, its still a very nice film to sit down and watch with your feet up! There maybe the odd one or two mistakes you catch, and the cinematic are a little slipshod, the film itself is very enjoyable and has a wonderful atmosphere to it. The music contributes a lot to the mood of the movie.

The acting is none the less impressive (especially the dog he he!) with John Travolta taking the lead of the fun-troublesome-loving Michael. Other characters feel very genuine and perform very well within the film.

So after a long day at work, stick "Michael" on in the evening with some ice-cream and enjoy a very quality film in its own right :)


Chicago reporter Frank Quinlan decided to go to Iowa to confirm the existence of a so-called angel. He was not alone. His partner Huey Driscoll and new colleague Dorothy Winters also joined him. When they arrived at the destination, they found that the angel Michael was quite different from what they expected. However Frank still persuaded Michael to go to Chicago with them. So an interesting journey began.

Although Michael did not look like a saint, he was a kind and funny angel. In fact Michael owned irresistible charming for women. Even due to jealousy of other men, he was involved in a riot. The climax appeared in the pizza restaurant. Dorothy sang lively country songs for Frank. That was just what Michael wanted to see. But the next day Huey 's dog was crashed to death by a running car. Michael was asked to save it. That would be used to verify whether he was a real angel.

Andie Macdowell shined in this comedy. She also showed her singing ability. John Travolta proved his comedian talent again. Of cause Pulp Fiction still was his typical work.

A comedy that will warm your heart. 8/10


As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes!

Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted.

Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy.


That pretty much sums it up ... corny. MacDowell's inability to act is at times painful, and Hurt must need money to take such muted roles, but I still enjoyed it.

Why? In a single word, Travolta. He is GREAT in this movie. Still, I can't give the movie too high a score, but it certainly deserves better than it seems to be getting.


I enjoyed this film which I thought was well written and acted.

There was plenty of humour and a thought-provoking storyline. A warm and enjoyable experience with an emotional ending.Good fun.


honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.

it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all.


I found the movie to be very light and enjoyable. One knows that the story is not real life like, yet the depiction is superb.

Lyrics are really good and John Travolta in his usual style. I like the scene wherein he as an angel gives up his own stuff to bring life back to the dog.


An off beat but very delightful performance by John Travolta sets off this very funny comedy. His interpretation of the archangel is as a scuffy, womanizing, overweight, ladies man. And, he certainly has a mesmerizing effect on the women he encounters on his trip to Chicago. John Hurt is very low keyed in his role as chief reporter for Chicago Tabloid owner, Bob Hoskins. Angie MacDowell plays role much as she did her role in "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Maureen Stapleton is neat in a cameo. Her comment, "Michael doesn't suffer fools," is just one of many memorable moments. Bob Hoskins is the only one of the lead performers who fails to connect, a little to off the wall. Mainly you're there to see Michael take on a bull, mesmerize the waitresses and lady dancers at a western style restaurant, and fully demonstrate that he is complete free soul. It is a memorable comedy that is worth more than one viewing.


Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.


I have done a lot of international travel, both on business and as a tourist. For both types I assure you the best advice is also the oldest: Always drink the wine of the country. In this movie the archangel Michael comes to Earth on business, wraps it up quickly and decides to hang around for a little touring. Boy! Does he "drink the wine of the country."

Could man be drunk forever with liquor, love and fights

He'd lief rise up of mornings and lief lie down of nights.

These are things you can't do in Heaven so he enjoys them while he's here! Of course it turns out he had a couple of other jobs to tackle and, if he is less direct about them than he was about the first one, he is just as successful. The final scene is a little schmaltzy but it is also wonderful. Jean Stapleton gets to dance with John Travolta.


Wow, I think the overall average rating of this film on this site is incredibly low. There's really no reason to dislike this film. "Michael" is a simple, but fairly original, and easily enjoyable romantic comedy. The plot involves a group of reporters/experts going to examine the mysterious appearance of an angel (John Travolta) in the midwest. The angel proves to be less saintly and more worldly than we would expect, and that's what makes it entertaining. His interest in women and the Beatles takes a new spin on the angel thing. The romantic side of this film involves Michael the angel trying to get Andie MacDowell and William Hurt together. The two of them may not have the all-time greatest on-screen chemistry, but they certainly have enough to make it work well. Everyone who has rated this film so low (a 5.4??), come on! The film is not that bad. In fact, I found it quite funny and memorable. Sure, it's not the best thing you'll ever see, but it's still good. This is a film I feel has been remarkably underrated. It's fun, romantic, and recommended by me.

*** out of ****


This movie is an all-time favorite of mine. I'm sorry that IMDb is not more positive about it. I hope that doesn't keep those who have not experienced it from watching it.

I've always loved this movie. I watch it about once a year and am always pleased anew with the film and especially the stellar performances by entire cast.

I've always wondered whether Jean Stapleton actually did the ending dance with Travolta???? If anyone knows this piece of trivia, please leave a comment.

Thanks and ENJOY!


Why would this film be so good, but only gross an estimated $95,000,000 and have NO award nominations? John Travolta knows what he's doing. He knows he's Michael, a cigar smoking, womanizing, magical arch angel that came down to live with a dying lady and is now in a car with the staff of "The National Mirror" and their dog, Sparky, on the way to Chicago. It then turns into a road trip that's both horrible AND great. I don't even think the death scenes (3 to be exact) make this a tearjerker. The soundtrack is the best with "Heaven Is My Home", "Up Around The Bend", and "Chains Of Fools". I have very great expectations about this and I say that it should have had a little more respect in the 90's. Read my comment. Bye!


It's a movie with a theatrical message blended with some clever moments. Films like these are the stretching grounds of great actors, they enjoy tossing the ball in open pieces like these. The Angel that wasn't what we see in old books and churches is quite a nice change. It is echoed in Kevin Smith's piece, Dogma, almost in the same slapstick vein.

-=0) Watch this film for a good day after you suck it all in. Could it be that so many films are trying to be complicated that we forget the simple movements of films like this? Possibly one of the most fun pieces I have seen in a while, I ran into this one on VHS in a trash can because someone's basement was flooded this summer, and I grabbed a handful of tapes.

Whether in a trash bin, or on the silver screen, mild comedies like this are fun, you just don't have to tell everyone at a hip nightclub that you like it, or a swank political party. Just keep it for yourself, and I'll bet plenty of people will borrow it from time to time.


What is it about certain films that generates such polar opposite reactions?

Some people here have called High Roller "disgusting." Some have called it "extraordinary" (as would I, actually).

Why? I think it's because films like this don't make heroes out of jerks, or glamour out of degeneration, and some people just can't deal with that emotionally. They NEED a hero. And I'd also add that if they're gamblers or poker players, they might feel personally betrayed when their existence isn't justified.

High Roller in NOT a poker movie. It's a PEOPLE movie. It's not perfect, but it looks good, is well-written, and wonderfully acted. And best of all, it generates an emotional response and inspires reflection.

And maybe that's what makes some people so damn mad.


stuey unger was a card playing legend. he was quoted in an interview as saying, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me." there's a gin rummy scene in this movie that is so amazing you could have plopped it in 'X-Men' as a showcase for a superhero's mutant power. that's how incredible this man was.

i have a few minor problems with this movie. as dark as this movie was, stuey's real life was darker. poker pro todd brunson said, "During the last World Series of poker, Bob Stupak, Mike Sexton and I had a drink and talked about Stu. Mike told us how he could barely talk, hadn't showered in weeks and how his fingers were burned black by a crack pipe." in the film, michael imperioli looked far too healthy to be stu unger in the final years of his life. when stuey won his last wsop he looked like a skeleton, but let's face it, this production lacked both the time and the "deniro" to make that kind of transformation. my other problem was that i wish there was more poker playing, with actual hands and situations. sure it might have bored the average non poker enthusiast, but it would have been nice for the hardcores. too bad the movie wasn't 6 hours or so longer.

i watched the movie with 3 non poker players and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. just like you don't have to be a former member of the colonial army to enjoy Gibson's "the patriot", you don't have to be a poker player to see this gem. can't wait for the DVD. (8 out of 10)


This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.

This movie is worth renting.


This movie has a "big production" feel that I was not expecting from an independent film. The characters are each developed and dealt with in a way that not only helps to tell the story, but left me with a satisfied viewing experience.


By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive.

Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.

Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).

What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. "Aha! How derivative," people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!

Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the "Seventh Seal." (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says "We can play a hand of cards for, ya know"... Death says "Never much good at cards.." Damn great last line.)

No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.

Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.

9/10


The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.

STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.

This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.

There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.

Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.

Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.

The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!

'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.'


I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one!


After watching the series premiere of Talk Show with Spike Feresten I took a moment to really think wow there are actually good shows on after 12 besides SNL and I was also sad to see that it was only 30 minutes long. His great writing skills helped this show overcome a series lack of money and helping hands. Electronic Lincoln was hilarious and I really think this will be a good Dark Horse Talk Show.

I was very happy with the way he handled it and gave Andy Richtor some good lines to work with. As you would have suspected it was a little shaky but for that kind of time slot it was very good.

Overall if you are not someone on weed or even if you are and you don't have something more important to do than watch this great piece and have a fun time doing it.


I say remember where and when you saw this show because I believe if Fox gives Talk Show a chance Spike will be right up there with Conan in a few years because like Conan he is incredibly funny and seems to be just grateful at having his own show which adds to the humor.

The funniest bits Spike has had so far are The Idiot Paparatzi and Comedy For Stoners and if your not high and get CFS what does that say about you.

In summary this show is funnier in 25 minutes than SNL in an hour so lets hope Talk Show gets the attention it deserves such as an extra half hour, more money and a band.


This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!


Spike Feresten is a comic genius. 'Talkshow' demonstrates a fresh take on the kind of odd ball irreverence that have made shows like Letterman and The Daily Show successful. His likability is palpable. He seems to find the unique angle of the joke, not the predictable sitcom path...thank God. His comedy is reminiscent of the award winning Arrested Development (cross your fingers that 'Talkshow' has a longer life span). The topics he highlights tend to be those things that pass by unnoticed by everyone else, yet when he creates a joke around them out you wonder how you missed it the first time around. I particularly enjoyed the sketches..."Unfair Target" will be a cult classic in no time. Set your Tivo's people...this is a show not to be missed.


I am appalled and dismayed that the Network has canceled Talk Show with Spike Feresten !!

What is wrong with The Fox Television Network, Canceling Talk Show With Spike Feresten and replacing it with Wanda Sikes? For those at the Network with a short attention span, Wanda At Large was canceled because the audience grew tired of her nasty insults that would make the audience cringe, and Wanda Sykes spewing out her very own brand of vindictive mud slinging jokes is not humor, it is nasty and repulsive.

Apparently The Fox Television Network has rewarded Wanda Sikes because she has garnered a self important appearance front of President Barak Obama. There is no doubt that Wanda's recent ill tempered in front of the President of The United States are not funny and the audience laughter was only to patronize and please Barak Obama.

Talk Show with Spike Feresten has a genuine sense of humor and has never deliberately or vindictively insulted any guest or performer. Spike's well rounded personality always gleefully, poked fun of life and himself.and his Filed Pieces during the first two seasons with AFTRA Actress Mary Mae Atwill, as the Mae West of the 21st Century were absolutely hysterical with Spike Feresten's skits:Judge Joe Brown, Trading Spouses and Last Season's James Kyson Lee Episode where Spike chats with Erica via the Internet on the show.

Despite the Network's budget constraints for elaborate field pieces and the Second Season's WGA Strike, Spike Feresten did not waiver his sense of humor or show integrity. Talk Show with Spike Feresten always had up in coming new talent and his Comedy for Stoners spoofs of Nanny 911 and Idiot Paparazzi were considered cutting edge and had excellent production value.

On a professional level, Spike Feresten, was the best Executive Producers, and Set Producer, Brett Webster along with his fabulous production crew were one of the best production teams that I have worked for in my AFTRA Career .It would really be very foolish and sad shame to cancel Talk Show with Spike Feresten.

Unfortunately, its success could conceivably be taken to Comedy Central or another Network and Financially speaking, that would become a valuable revenue loss for FOX Television..

On behalf of the late night Saturday Fox Television audience, supporters of Talk Show with Spike Feresten, including all cast and crew, we beseech the Network to retain the Talk Show With Spike Feresten Franchise and give the crew a second opportunity to become a successful Fox Show.


Talkshow with Spike Feresten is one of those shows that will definitely polarize audiences. Either you like it or you don't. Personally, I find most of the bits hilarious, but it does have some "huh?" moments.

Staples like "Idiot Paparazzi" are always good for a laugh, but my all-time favorite bit has to be the one-off "Hollywood Douchebag". "Comedy for Stoners" is the only regular bit that generally leaves me confused (which is part of the point!) Spike and his team of writers manage to churn out loads of fresh comedy time after time so the show never feels stale. Feresten's brand of humor may not be for everyone, but it's definitely worth trying.

The masses have spoken! We like this show and want more. Please note I am not a friend of or affiliated in any way with Spike Feresten, "Talkshow with Spike Feresten" staff, or Fox network and affiliates. It's just plain funny!


I saw it last week and the sketch about the Korea towns was funny . Very tongue in cheek and suitable to the political climate. Full points to the writers and Spike for that. The part where he makes the translator pull a rickshaw and throws out Korean words could have been pulled off only by Spike. This is a brave attempt by Fox . This is a brilliant show and I hope that it pulls off . My wife and I have been TIVOing it regularly and although it clashes it with a couple of other programs we watch it now on MySpace. I hope Fox dedicates full resources to the show and makes it daily. I can't wait to see Bobby Lee on his show . With people like Bernard Abedalla behind the show this is on the right track. Also Mary Mae as his wife looks beautiful.


This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.

I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!

Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness).

I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".

Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.

I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).

God willing!

Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.


"Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!" [Harry Crystal]

Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).

With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!

Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... "You're hooked, kid!" [Harry Crystal]


I originally saw this film while I was working as a musician doing musical theatre in summer stock. If you've ever done any work in theatre - especially at a summer stock theatre - you'll really enjoy this film.

Yes, there are some moments of really bad writing in the film, but overall it's a lovely tribute to the theatre and why people love it.


And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.

Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.

And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?

PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph!


The warmest, most engaging movie of its genre, Those Lips, Those Eyes, made me smile and cry as it reminded me of the work it takes to pursue a dream and the pain of disappointment. Hulce and Langella are superb and the story seems to write itself. A brilliant screenplay by David Shaber (one of my favorites! - see The Warriors and Nighthawks for more...) and beautiful sets filmed on location (I think) at the actual summer theater in which the story takes place. You can't see this movie and not want to drop everything and get into the theater! Please check this video out if you can find it.


I must have seen a different version than the first person on the user comments section.

It's really, really good...Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are great together. Val Kilmer's character is much like he was in the novel, although the emphasis is on Gus and Call and the Comanches. We get to see what happened with Call and Newt's mother as well. I won't spoil it, but it gives a lot of insight into Call's character.

All the actors did a really convincing job. Steve Zahn had the biggest challenge, I thought, to follow Robert Duvall! There's a lot of action, humor, tragedy. It's got something for everyone. I can't wait until it airs, my family are all jealous I got to see it early!


There have been some harsh criticisms of Comanche Moon on IMDb. I think this is for three reasons. First, purists are disappointed that the mini-series is not exactly like the book. Second, it's not as good as the original Lonesome Dove. Finally, people like to complain on IMDb and the greatest films in the world will have bad comments.

I would like to say that no movie is going to be as good as the book. That's just the way it is. Lonesome Dove wasn't as good as the novel it was based on. Additionally, the movie of Lonesome Dove had some things left out ans switched around. That's just they way its going to be with a film adaptation of anything. So its a futile argument when looking at Comanche Moon.

I do agree it's not as good as the original Dove. But hey, nothing is. I know people that guide their lives by the lessons they learned from the Dove. If I was going to compare every book I read, movie I watched, and TV I viewed by Lonesome Dove; I would be perpetually unhappy.

This is a made for TV miniseries based on a prequel to Lonesome Dave (the novel) and sequel to Dead man's Walk, and that's what you get. It's the best TV I've seen in years. It's a fun set up for Lonesome Dove. We get to learn about the history of the Rangers we came to know and love in Dove. Zahn does an amazing job in recreating Gus McCrae. Elizabeth Banks and Linda Forenelli (sp?) also do great jobs as creating characters that help fill in the past of the rangers and Newt.

If/when it comes on again, I promise you'll enjoy it more than some crumby reality show.


What has hurt this film is everyone and their Aunt Matilda is comparing it to its illustrious predecessor, which is always going to hurt any show. If you take it as a western, it's a darned good show. We discover how our characters in 'Lonesome Dove' wind up in the situations they start up in (Such as: Why do two Texas Rangers, who live on adventure, wind up in a dead town? And how did Gus manage to lose the love of his life?) The performances are very good, and we see the exact same mannerisms the characters will have down the road. The actors did a very good job. The cinematography was superb, and while the music didn't live up to the legendary score of nearly two decades past, that was an impossible task, and it was still fine.

It also helped that we had three episodes, which you just don't see in a miniseries anymore. Heck, it's downright impossible to see a two part telefilm these days.

Fans of the western, rejoice!


I think the consensus is pretty unanimous about this recent TV miniseries: it's okay but it's a far cry from "Lonesome Dove." It gets compared to the latter simply because this a prequel to that famous story.

"Commanche Moon" is definitely worth a watch for any fan of westerns. Just don't expect it to be as intense as "Lonesome Dove." Steve Zahn and Karl Urban are not Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones, and the characters they play aren't as strong as how Duvall and Jones portrayed the same two guys. Some say it's unfair to criticize this movie because of the comparison but you have to compare it - it's the story of the same two leading Texas Ranger characters: "Woodrow Call" and "Gus McCrae."

The main difference, I found, was that this prequel is a lot of slower and more relational (the two Rangers and their women) at times. Yet, I didn't mind that because the two main women were pretty ladies and generally likable and agreeable people. They were played nicely by Linda Cardelini ("Clara Forsythe") and Elizabeth Banks ("Maggie.").. They helped make this long movie palatable. If you've seen pictures of women in the Old West, none of them looked half as pretty as Cardelini and Banks, though. They were a joy for these male eyes to ogle. Maggie's son "Newt" was a wonderful kid, too - the kind of boy every parent would want..

The most interesting character, I thought, turned out to be "Inish Scull," played by Val Kilmer. As in the western film, "Tombstone," Kilmer almost steals the show from the leads. "Scull" is really an original, if I ever saw one: a strange dude, indeed.

Actually, all of the supporting actors in here did a fine job, from Keith Robinson's "Deets" to Wes Studi as "Buffalo Hump." I always find Studi to be fascinating, no matter what role he plays. I wish he had had a bigger role in this miniseries.

One thing this film has in common with "Lonesome Dove" and other good westerns: the scenery and photography. It's just beautiful at times and is a joy to watch. We also have an excellent director of this film: Simon Wincer, who directed "Lonesome Dove" and an another outstanding TV western, "Crossfire Trail." He also did two of my other favorite feature films, both based in his home country of Australia: "Phar Lap" and "Quigley Down Under."

Unfortunately, although I enjoyed this, "Commanche Moon" is nothing as good as the above-mentioned films.Yet, I still watched all of it and was sorry it ended, if that makes any sense. It made me want to watch Woodrow and Gus again, this time with Tommy Lee and Robert.

Note: The title page says this is 360 minutes. That must have included the TV commercials. The two-disc DVD version I saw was about 4 hours and 40 minutes.


I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so.


Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters.


Things I like. Steve Zahn as Gus, nails the part, copies Robert Duvalls mannerisms which makes him feel comfortable to Gus fans. (some of the other actors copy their predecessors style in this series as well). Karl Urban, looks grim and tough, but can crack a joke and smile too, which T.L.Jones did in original series. The gear, the guns, the clothing, all accurate, or very close to period accurate. I'll never forgive Costner and Duvall for having a nylon lariat in their chuckwagon in Open Range. The Comanches, they are actually riding bareback, rather than hiding a modern saddle under a Navajo blanket. And they aren't painted as politically correct peace loving pastoralists, but as a proud warrior people. There are some dumb scenes, but it beats the heck out of yet another variation on doing something stupid to not win a million dollars reality game shows.


Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.

For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.

Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.


John Wayne's first starring role just blew me away. Televised letterbox style on AMC, I had to check and make sure I had the right date. Sure enough, this 1930 film was made using a 55 mm wide-screen process. Aside from that, it features some of the grittiest, most realistic footage of the trek west I've seen. Wagons, men and animals are really lowered down a cliff face by rope. Trees are chopped by burly men -- and burly women -- so the train can move another 10 feet. The Indians are not the "pretty boy" city slickers who portrayed them later; they're the real deal. A river crossing in a driving rain storm is so realistic, it has to be real (In fact, I understand that director Raoul Walsh nearly lost the entire cast during this sequence). I could smell the wet canvas. Each day is an agony. The various sub-plots are forgettable but the film as a whole is not. I can't think of another title that can beat The Big Trail in evoking a sense of living history on the trail to Oregon. Bravo.


I just saw The Big Trail in Vienna's Filmmuseum for the first time. Immediately I was astonished by both the pictures optical high quality and unusual format and by its beautifully detailed story. Who has ever seen such a documentary style western with John Wayne? And there is so much time, you can actually look around on the screen, there is so much to see! One is ever grateful that the scenes are often static, because every single shot is so well composed and you want to take it it. Even the acting is good and fits in well. The long running time of the picture is wonderful, you don't want to miss a minute of it!


A heroic young trail scout leads a large party of pioneers along THE BIG TRAIL to the West, with Indian attacks, natural disasters & romantic complications all part of the adventure.

As sweeping & magnificent as its story, Raoul Walsh's THE BIG TRAIL is a wonderful film, as entertaining as it was more than seven decades ago. With very good acting and excellent production values, it lives up to its reputation as the talkies' first epic Western.

John Wayne, pulled from obscurity for his first important movie role, looks impossibly young, but he immediately impresses with the natural charm & masculine authority he brings to the hero's role; he quietly dominates the film with the attributes which would someday make him a huge star. Marguerite Churchill is fetching as a lovely Southern belle who slowly warms to the Duke's attentions. Dialect comic El Brendel is great fun as a Swedish immigrant beset with mule & mother-in-law woes; his appearance in a scene signals laughs for the viewer.

Looking & sounding like a human grizzly bear, Tyrone Power Sr., vast & repulsive, makes a wonderful villain. Slick cardsharp Ian Keith is a sophisticated bad guy. (His famous physical similarity to John Gilbert is very apparent here.) Silent movie character actor Tully Marshall is impressive as a wily old mountain man who helps guide the wagon train. Corpulent Russ Powell, as a friendly fur trapper, puts his vocal talent for making nonsense noises to good use. Sharp-eyed movie mavens will spot Ward Bond as one of the Missouri settlers.

What will surprise many modern viewers is that THE BIG TRAIL was filmed in an early wide screen process, called Grandeur. More than living up to its name, the picture looks marvelous, with Walsh showing a mastery of the new technology. He fills the screen, every portion of it, with action. Notice during the crowd scenes, how everyone is busy doing real work, which adds so much to the verisimilitude of these sequences. Walsh deserves great credit for being one of the first directors to use wide screen. In addition, the film is blessedly free of the rear projection photography which blights so many older films. It should also be stressed that it is only natural that the soundtrack sounds a little primitive; talkies were still in their cradle. That Walsh was able to use a microphone at all, with most of the scenes shot out of doors, is more kudos for him.

THE BIG TRAIL was not a box office success. In 1930, William Haines' comedies were the big money makers and the public was looking for fare other than intelligent Westerns. Most of the cast slipped into obscurity, including Wayne. It would not be until 1939, when John Ford rescued him in STAGECOACH, that John Wayne's legend would begin in earnest. And despite its grand & sweeping vistas, it would be another 25 years before wide screen caught on with Hollywood, largely as an answer to the economic threat from television.


John Wayne is one of the few players in film history to have failed at his first big break and then succeed on the second time around. Of course everyone knows the second time was the classic Stagecoach with John Ford directing.

But we're here to talk about The Big Trail. John Ford's fellow director Raoul Walsh spotted this tall kid on the set of one of Ford's films and thought he had potential. He wanted to make him the lead in a big budget western that Fox was planning to do. The film as planned would be an homage to the famous classic silent western The Covered Wagon.

In watching The Big Trail I was struck by how similar Wayne's character of Breck Coleman here is to the Ringo Kid in Stagecoach. Both characters were likable young cowpokes, but both were also on a mission of vengeance. And of course both films were done on location and show the expense in making them. No studio product here with a backlot western set.

I also don't think that it was an accident that Wayne got this break at the beginning of the sound era. Raoul Walsh, I'm guessing looked around Hollywood and probably didn't think a whole lot of movie cowboys would have staying power in sound. That's something else Walsh spotted in Wayne.

According to what I've read The Big Trail flopped because after spending all that money to make the film in an early wide screen process, some genius at Fox realized that their theaters weren't equipped with the wide screen to show it. And when the Great Depression hit there would be no money to widen those screens at Fox movie houses. So The Big Trail got a limited release, even in what we would call a formatted version, and lost money big for Fox films.

Marguerite Churchill is fine as the crinoline heroine who Duke wins, loses and wins again from Ian Keith. Keith, Charles Stevens and F. Tyrone Power are the trio of villains Wayne has to deal with.

F. Tyrone Power is the father of the famous movie legend Tyrone Power. He was a big burly man with a grand background in classic roles on screen and on stage. I wouldn't be surprised if his son who would have been 15 at the time might not have been hanging around the set.

Also look for Ward Bond though you might have trouble spotting him under a big bushy beard.

Watching The Big Trail now it is interesting to speculate where John Wayne's career might have gone if The Big Trail had been a big hit.


I have really nothing to add to all the other comments, save this: To me the film looked like a silent film slowly being adapted to sound. The text boards bringing the story along reinforced that impression I suppose. Along the way the actors were allowed to leave the stilted, theatre-like acting; Marguerite Churchill very much looks like a typical early silent movie heroine at the beginning of the film, but at the end is allowed finer expressions. Gus, the Swede?, reminded me of the comic characters of Shakespeare plays, and Windy sounded to me like an early Donald Duck.

It truly amazed me that it was all filmed outdoors, on location, and even though the dust of all the wagons, horses and cattle obscured the view it must actually have been like that for the real settlers! It also was clear to me that many of those Indians must have been real, and I didn't detect any overt racism towards them. And John Wayne looks so incredibly young! As someone who became a real Wayne fan through the cavalry trilogy by John Ford, and thought that Stage Coach was Wayne's first as a leading star, this film was a revelation. The plot is very simple, again reminding me of a silent film, but the grit is very real indeed! An amazing film to have been made with that technique and under those conditions in 1930.


What some mistake for stilted dialog and/or dismiss as archetypal characterizations accurately represents how people talked, lived and were before World War II, let alone in whatever years "The Big Trail" represent on film.

The movie took my breath away the first time I saw it years ago. Reading the boards here helped me understand why it missed at the box office and why movie goers got the benefit of Wayne in B Westerns for another ten years. Wayne was in my opinion better in "The Big Trail" and the years of Bs than most of his star turns after 1939 with Ford's incredible cavalry trilogy, "True Grit" and "The Shootist" being Big time exceptions.

What a shame theaters missed the boat on this in 1930. Had this movie hit we might have enjoyed more movies with more realism and less hokum. In my opinion this is not only one of the finest westerns ever filmed with accurate dialog and accurate character realization, but among the finest representations of a passage of any kind ever put on film.

It still takes my breath away. Especially the dialog and accurate characterizations of types that simply don't exist any more. Some celebrate the surface homogenization of our culture that in fact hides the largest cultural degradation (into 'people like us' and 'people like them') and political divide (corporatists vs Main Streetists) in US history, but for me "The Big Trail" represents a time when our surface differences were more obvious but underneath them most folks wanted to work out the nation's failures and most folks aspired to build a great culture and a great nation.

"The Big Trail" is an epic of the melting pot in motion toward the American Dream. Certainly the finest film on that path I ever saw. that subject ever filmed.


I just recently bought "The Big Trail" {1930}. It's an awesome, amazing film. I knew it by reputation but never expected it to be so magnificent. My version is the one shot in 35mm and I'll speak of that again later. When one thinks of the Western Myth in film the names that come to mind are John Ford and John Wayne. Well, you have only half the team here, but the entire Myth is present. Raoul Walsh has given us a remarkable epic in which the true plot is the struggle of the westward expansion of the nation.

There is a plot centering on a romance between Breck Coleman {Wayne} and Ruth Cameron {Margaret Churchill} with the main villain, Red Flack being memorably played by Tyrone Power, Sr. But this has an almost incidental quality as the wagon train struggles forward against incredible obstaclesboth natural and human. Examples are the crossing of the river, the Indian battle, and traversing the burning Desert. The aftermath of the battle is given a sombre touch when a doll is placed on the grave of a child killed while a faithful dog lies down on its master's grave.

Magnificent panoramas are filled with energy and activity. The opening scene as the wagon train prepares to leave, the Square Dance interlude and the great Buffalo herds are some that spring to mind. Marvellous use is made of location shooting throughout. Another feature of this splendid film is the fact that men and women are given equal credit for their parts in the great struggle Westward. Women work, fight, and confront the terrible hardships with the same fortitude and strength as their male counterparts. The finale has a powerfully uplifting experience as Coleman and Cameron meet in the gigantic towering Sequoia forest to start their new life.

The acting is quite acceptable throughout. I've already mentioned Tyrone Power's scene-stealing performance. Tully Marshall is excellent as Coleman's sidekick, and Marguerite Churchill convincingly portrays a woman who develops an inner strength as she encounters her own problems as well as those external to herself. The comic-relief is the weakest aspect of this film, but these scenes are not common and are swallowed up in the tremendous sweep of the film.

I've read much criticism of Wayne's performancesome even going so far as to blame his "wooden acting" for the failure of the film at the box-office. I think this is unfair. Wayne was in his first major role and certainly had not developed the charisma of his performance in "Stagecoach". But he still does a serviceable job in a role which is certainly going to play second fiddle to the great over-arching theme. After "The Big Trail", Wayne played in a large number of low-budget B Westerns. I have a number of these and one can see the developing actor in them. When "Stagecoach" came he was ready for it and "The Big Trail" was a significant part of that apprenticeship.

I mentioned earlier that my version is the one shot in 35mm. It's still impressive, but to get some idea of the effect of the 70mm version I set the TV screen to 16:9 which doesn't cause any distortion. While not having the complete effect of the Grandeur version, it was good enough to make me want to get the latter. {in addition, the film shot in 70mm has a few extra scenes not in the form made for ordinary theatrical showing}.

All-in-all, this film deserves to be in any list of the greatest Westerns ever made.


i really liked this film.it features John Wayne in his first starring performance.even then,you can tell Wayne has a real presence,although he wouldn't really mature into the icon he is known for until Stagecoach,9 years later in 1939.it's about settlers from all over the country heading to the new west to colonize it.Wayne's character Breck Coleman joins up,but for his own personal reasons.most of the main actors were stage actors and had never done a film before,which makes the movie even more amazing.they managed to create believable,distinctive characters and there is quite an oddball mix here.Cimarron would come out a year later,and had a very similar story,though i didn't like it as much as this movie.for me,The Big Trail is a strong 8/10.