absolutely amazing film. absolutely the best anti-china movie Americans ever made("anti-china" just means that kind of movie shows china's bad side, doesn't mean anything negative.) the reason make me like this movie, is how deep the film makers know about china, unlike other anti-china movies, this one is extremely really, like the all the uniform designs, and those details make the movie "believelbe". but thats not the best part, the beauty of the film is how much does the writer understand whats the problem of china, those problems in the justice system, the problem of the control the powerful man in military. i cant believe the writer is from another country, because the those problem of china is so complicated that to hard to be understood by the most of western citizens. one thing i have to say about the last commenter, he suggest that go ask those fa lungong people to know how Chinese government trade human rights, come on, thats just as stupid as go ask the terrorists how do they think about USA. anyway, not like I'm saying that human rights in china is cool, just, that unnecessary exaggerate will just make it like a shity film, like "spy game", which by the way has nothing compare to the red corner.


Overall, it is a very good movie although some of the Chinese to English translation was not well done. The movie does comply with a plot climax and exposing the corruption idea of a supreme power at court in a communist society. Although there might be some scenes are not matching the real scene, however, it is understandable of how a movie is made to present a story into a reality. My overall experience with this movie is great. There are many beautiful scene in China having been brought in the movie as well as how the political and local culture at the old days of China. It is a tear earning movie as well as a temporary aggravation of the mistreatment to foreigner in China at that time. This makes me think of 2008 Olympics in China, what will it be like.


This movie is nerve wrecking... a must see for any fan of thrillers!!! Richard Gere plays a man framed for murdering a women in China, and the US government can't do anything about it!!!! Intense Action Packed Thrills packed with Mystery bring this movie into my top 10 Thriller list!!!!


Hollywood is always a sinister setting, even for a comedy and "The Dying Gaul" is no exception. I don't intend to divulge the ins and outs of the story because that should be your job, but I feel compelled to talk about it because it kind of stacked all over me like some kind of alien jelly. I always loved Campbell Scott and I suspect I always will. He plays the devil - The "I'll give you a million bucks if you abandon completely yourself, your principles, your loyalties" - kind of devil - He is married to the splendid Patricia Clarkson ( part Meryl Streep part Wayland Flower's Madame) and the object of his temptation is Peter Sarsgaard, one of the best creepiest actors ever to appear on film. It may be a personal thing but he gives me the willies. The film is an uncomfortable journey through a strangely familiar landscape that becomes darker and darker. I will take my chances and recommend it.


THE DYING GAUL, written and directed by Craig Lucas (writing credits include 'Longtime Companion', 'Prelude to a Kiss', 'Reckless') is a brilliant little film that stirred comment and appreciation during its unfortunately very brief run in the theaters (as one of the film's characters comments "Most Americans hate gay people. If they hear it's about gay people, they won't go.") And this in a year when films such as 'Brokeback Mountain', 'Transamerica', and 'Capote' drew focus. As the oft-used phrase states, 'Go figure'.

The story is a bizarre triangle of interaction among three very bright, enlightened, yet passionately isolated people whose coming together is the stuff of tragedy on the grand scale. Robert Sandrich (Peter Sarsgaard) is a grieving screenwriter (his lover recently died from complications of AIDS in a manner secretly gnawing at Robert). His most recent screenplay 'The Dying Gaul' about a gay couple - one with AIDS - is a tribute to his lover, and while it is a brilliant script and is taken on by a top film producer Jeffrey Tishop (Campbell Scott), Jeffrey offers to buy the script for a million dollars IF Robert re-writes the script to make the couple a heterosexual one (see above for his reason). Robert at first refuses to 'sell out' but eventually gives in and does the re-write. Jeffrey is married to a very bright ex-screenwriter Elaine (Patricia Clarkson) who reads Robert's script, loves the original and becomes so obsessed with the script and with Robert that she plunges into an investigation of Robert's life. Compounding the intrigue is the fact that Jeffrey begins to fall in love with Robert and Robert is so needy emotionally that he responds: the two become lovers. Elaine enters Robert's private life via chat room discussion where she poses as the voice of Robert's dead lover and inadvertently discovers secrets that eventually bring the trio to a devastating climax: secrets are revealed that demand accountability and each character is permanently altered.

Craig Lucas, in this his first directorial outing, proves to be an artist with style, with vision, and with guts to put tough material into visual form. The pacing is tense, the ideas are well developed from the meaning of the title to the cruelty of the machine mode means of conversation via email chat rooms. He handles sexuality variations as well as any director today. He of course is blessed with a trio of superlative actors: Sarsgaard, Clarkson and Campbell give extraordinary performances. The cinematography by Bobby Bukowski revels in the brilliance of the California sun at poolside as well as the eerie light from the computer screen in darkened rooms - further underlining the alienation that medium demands. And the crowning addition is a musical score by gifted composer Steve Reich (one of the finest of today's classical composers). THE DYING GAUL is a tough film but one that is so refreshingly dedicated to its vision that it scores as a major work. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp


How do we honor those we love? What kind of therapy can words provide?

I didn't understand the title of this movie but was eager to see it at the Austin Film Festival because it features such an exceptional cast. Campbell Scott, Peter Sarsgaard, and Patricia Clarkson consistently do interesting work and are appearing together for the first time. "The Dying Gaul" is one of the best movies I've seen in awhile.

In one of the first scenes Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) elaborates on the title of his screenplay, "The Dying Gaul," with studio executive Jeffrey (Campbell Scott.) The screenplay and its meaning to the writer becomes a catalyst for the story that unfolds.

This story of lust, manipulation, betrayal, and revenge is - not surprisingly - set in the Hollywood of 1995. But it's a story that could take place elsewhere, it just wouldn't be as captivating or beautifully photographed - and there are some lovely and interesting scenes and unusual close-ups.

Robert has turned the loss of his partner to AIDS into a screenplay that studio executive Jeffrey will pay top dollar for, with one significant change. Jeffrey's wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), also a screenwriter, adores the original script. She is drawn to Robert and wants to know more about the forces that influenced his talent. Her shocking discovery propels the story in unexpected ways.

Don't leave until the credits roll or you won't know who screenwriter and director Craig Lucas dedicates his story to. You may think about it in a different light. Lucas also wrote the screenplays of two other movies I liked very much: "The Secret Lives of Dentists" and "Longtime Companion." He is quite good at exploring the mysteries of the heart and dynamics of relationships. Don't miss this movie. I intend to see it again.


First off, the less you know about this movie before seeing it, the better. Go in clean. And just let it such you in. Here are a few things you CAN know. (a) The screenwriter/director, Craig Lucas, is gay but wrote his best known play, PRELUDE TO A KISS, about a straight relationship that has overtones of homosexuality. (b) Patricia Clarkson may be the finest actress of her age. She flits around the first 20 minutes of this movie in a bra and panties, toyingly svelt but with a panther-like quality you only realize later. (c) This is a movie without a protagonist or an antagonist -- or more accurate, a movie in which each of the main characters take turns at being the antagonist and protagonist. (d) Despite the gay aspects, this is really a movie about betrayal, and it is fiendishly mean (but in a good way). (e) Peter Sarsgaard has never looked handsomer. (f) That's all you need to know. See it.


From Craig Lucas, who brought us Longtime Companion and Prelude to a Kiss, comes this movie, which is much darker in tone and much more challenging as a film than either of those. Peter Sargaard stars as a gay screenwriter who has just sold his script, called The Dying Gaul. It tells the story of his lover's death from AIDS, and is based around a metaphor related to the famous Roman sculpture of the title. The thing about the sculpture is that it sensitively depicts a dying soldier of the enemy's army, and so is normally taken to represent the ability to have empathy for one's enemy. Keep this in mind kids, it wasn't chosen by accident.

So Jeffery, the producer who buys the script, played by Campbell Scott, makes a condition of the sale that Robert change the dying character to a woman, as "everyone hates gays," and "people don't come to movies to feel bad or to learn, you have to lure them in and then deliver a lesson." These, also, are notes to keep in mind. At first Robert refuses, but he is offered a million dollars, and he needs that money. He intends to use part of it for the education of his son, who he had when married to a woman. We later find out that his lover who died was the brother of his former wife, which carefully hints at Robert's shifty morals. And, like many people with malleable morals, Robert professes to be a Buddhist.

Soon we are introduced to Jeffery's wife Elaine, played by Patricia Clarkson. She is shown, several times, in a white bikini (who knew she had such a slender, lithe body?). You will note that she is the only one who's body is exposed and sexually available, yet it soon becomes clear that no one, least of all her husband, is interested. This leads to the kind of sad isolation and bitter resentment you might expect.

Soon Robert is introduced to Elaine, when they go a screening of one of Jeffery's movies. Elaine positions herself as a confidant to Robert, one who understands how he feels and stands for his principles (she was formerly a screenwriter herself). She elicits from him that one of the ways he dulls the pain of being bereft by his lover's death is by perusing chatrooms, and she gets the name of his favorite one.

...Spoilers from here on out! Meanwhile, Jeffery is coming on hard to Robert, and we find out later that Robert has given in. Later the night of the screening, Elaine invents a name and finds Robert in the chatroom. She asks if he's seeing anyone, and it's revealed to her that he is--her husband! Clarkson's performance in this scene, and really all throughout the movie, is superb.

Driven by a complex web of emotions that are at once well-drawn and yet never spelled out, Elaine invents a new screen name, "ArckAngel," and writes Robert, claiming to be his dead lover. This sends Robert into an emotional spin of renewed grief and guilt, both at changing his screenplay and having the affair with Jeffery. Elaine continues as Robert's friend and confidant, and the whole mess starts getting more taut, more sordid, and more ugly. The ending came as a surprise to me, but one that will leave you with a lot to think about and piece back together.

So let's get back to the theme of empathy for one's enemy. Elaine definitely gets to understand Robert's pain, though she is resistant to feeling it because of her own situation. Robert comes to gain a clear understanding of Elaine's heartache, though again he has his own reasons for not letting himself be moved by it. At the end I believe we are supposed to gain an understanding of Jeffery's situation, but I'm not quite sure it works. The final image of the movie is Jeffery mimicking the posture of The Dying Gaul. It's good and it works in a structural way, but I'm still unsure whether it works emotionally. My friend and I had a long discussion over dinner about whether it was an accomplishment or a failure of the film that neither of us were moved by the character's predicaments. I felt for each of the character's, yet they are all so morally flawed that it is difficult to truly feel empathy for them, which keeps the movie on an emotionally distant, cerebral level. Again, is this purposeful? Neither me nor my friend could tell for sure.

The structure and metaphorical significance of the story will give you a lot to think about after the film is over. It's unusual for a film to be so well-thought out and interesting on so many levels these days, and it seems to be one of the best entries in the field of gay films, which finally seems to be heading away from coming-out stories and tales of pretty twits into more serious fare. I'm not sure it all works in the end, but the depth of the characters, the interesting and well-thought-out writing and structure, and the excellent performances all make this definitely one worth watching.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com


I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Mr. Lucas directed a very cinematic version of his stage play, and assembled an outstanding cast. Peter Sarsgaard, Campbell Scott and particularly Patricia Clarkson, give layered, complex, award-worthy performances.

This film reminds me of another along the same genre, American Beauty, which also examined difficult and complex relationships, and attempted to do so with both humor and pathos.

Because this film is part thriller, part black comedy, part searing emotional drama, it had me going on many levels.

Again, Patricia Clarkson should be praised highly for her ability to make the reactions of her character so real! I have not always been a Craig Lucas fan, as I sometimes find his work to be a bit preachy (Prelude to a Kiss), but with this film, and his obvious director's eye, I look forward to his next effort.


The acting is to die for; the cliff house is to die for; Peter Sarsgaard is to die for. In other words, the movie's not ALL bad; it just falls apart really quick - and unfortunately in just those key plot moments, so you walk out of the theater ready to slice it like a Ginsu, then talk about something else.

Like, did they really have to beat us over the head about the POISON PLANT that JUST HAPPENS to grow in the back yard. Didn't see that coming. Or about emailing with a dead person? Huh? Or how Peter conveniently FORGETS he told that woman his favorite online chat site. Oops. Or when one of the characters admits to being bisexual... HELLO, YA THINK??

Go. See it. Really. I MEAN it - if you want to get out of the house and/or satisfy your curiosity. But at the same time, prepare to cringe when Sarsgaard screams like a little girl during his orgasm. Actually, any little girl would sound like a grizzled old lumberjack next to Sarsgaard's orgasmic tittering.


Suppose you had intimate knowledge about someone, and that someone did not know that you knew. How would you use that knowledge? Or would you? This issue is the undercurrent that carries the film's plot, like a fast moving stream, over a cliff, to a swirling, uncontrollable emotional vortex that changes people's lives forever.

Set in modern Los Angeles, a grieving gay screenwriter named Robert (Peter Sarsgaard) meets with Jeffrey (Campbell Scott), a wealthy film producer, to talk about Robert's script "The Dying Gaul", a tribute to his deceased lover and soul mate. Jeffrey invites Robert to his mansion by the ocean to meet his wife Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who reads Robert's script and loves it. Over time, Robert and Elaine become friends, which sets up a triangular relationship that careens out of control when the anonymity of internet chat rooms provides cover for the discovery of secrets.

Artsy in tone and philosophy, the film exudes New Age dialogue, with conversation about Buddhist Karma, "the middle way", enlightenment, and deadly plant roots. The film's production design is chic. And while the color cinematography is mostly conventional, sometimes it is beautifully stylistic. I really liked those stark human silhouettes against that orange screen. The film's score, which connotes New Age spiritualism, is terrific.

Acting of the three leads is quite good. Patricia Clarkson is great as she sits in front of a computer monitor and, without speaking, displays myriad emotions through her facial expressions alone.

The chat room scenes are creative and emotionally potent, amid magnified keyboard clicking sounds. The back and forth exchange here is unusual, and striking in that it is meaningless when taken out of context, but highly enlightening when considered in relation to the film's plot, as this sample shows: "Hello"; "I hear clicking"; "I'm still here"; "Are you still there?"; "Yes"; "You sound really distracted"; "Yeah today"; "When?" "I'm sorry"; "No, I'm all yours"; "Are mine what?"; "No"; "Yes"; "Meaning?"; "I'm all yours now".

The film's screenplay does contain a rather obvious plot hole. And a couple of scenes involving Robert's son and former wife are too tangential to the story's trajectory. But these are minor issues.

"The Dying Gaul" may seem artistically or philosophically pretentious to some viewers. But I really liked it. Quite aside from the wonderful performances and the chic production values, the film's story has thematic depth, a quality lacking in most mainstream Hollywood films.


Craig Lucas' film is a piece of pretentious Hollywood crap, with the only saving grace that of the wonderful Patricia Clarkson who plays the "wounded" Hollywood wife in the film and delivers a very poignant and empathetic performance.

From the first scenes between Peter Sarsgaard, Robert, and the handsome Cambell Scott, Jefferey, this film doesn't ring true to me as a writer in Los Angeles, as he heads to meet a Studio executive in such a nonchalant and unprofessional manner to discuss the purchase of his script THE DYING GAUL. That whole office scene is just too silly for words-even Robert's...Any writer would die to be in his position, let alone to be so uncaring about his script being sold to a major studio.

The usual glamorous Malibu settings, sun setting over the blue Pacific, that limo ride where everyone is sipping champagne to the good life in Hollywood once you make it, just seemed such a boring cliché. And the scenes where Jefferey keeps saying to Robert, "you're so beautiful", are beyond trite dialog.

Yes, we all have lost someone we love to death, but the way these characters discuss, chat online and deceive one another is not bringing any empathy to their stories, nor for their audience. And the last scene is not a tear jerker, just a reflection of what deception and lies can create for your downfall.

My recommendation, you want a shot of dark Hollywood, stick to the intriguing MULHOLLAND DRIVE for viewing, not THE DYING GAUL.


What a stroke of genius to have this film open the 7th annual Miami Gay & Lesbian Film Festival. Craig Lucas attended and was wonderful. In a time when being gay is mostly viewed as a normal part of our societal fabric (current Administration and Red States notwithstanding)this film seems to me to elude the "gay film" classification. It has a gay character, it has a bi character (yes Virginia, there are "bi" people) and they are central to the story, but they are NOT the story. (Shhh...don't tell anyone, but the gay character isn't the good guy - WHAT!?)

For those who like their movies' plot lines all tied up in nice neat little bundles, with only one plausible explanation, "The Dying Gaul" probably isn't for you. This is a gem. Groundbreaking is the word that keeps coming to mind. It takes the psycho-thriller genre into the 21st century with only enough blood and gore to get it moved to the 9pm slot were it to appear on network TV (of course the gay content would probably relegate it to cable).

Amazing acting by Patricia Clarkson, Campbell Scott and Peter Sarsgaard make this film so easy to enjoy. The cinematography is beyond words; the screenplay and direction, brilliant. Craig Lucas (Long Time Companion, Secret Loves of Dentists, and Prelude to a Kiss) has proved his genius extends beyond writing to inspired directing.

Haunting and beautiful, this is a story as unique as the imagination of the viewer. Taken at face value there is an amazing film here. But for anyone willing and able to go below the surface, this is a multi-leveled film that deserves at least a 2 hour visit over coffee with a friend to explore the intricate, disturbing possibilities it conjures. BRAVO!


A trio of superb performances ignites writer-director Craig Lucas's 2005 bludgeoning psychological thriller set in the deal-making, Machiavellian world of Hollywood film-making circa 1995. The plot focuses on an unconventional triangle - Robert is a young screenwriter who gets summoned to a meeting with Jeffrey, a powerful studio executive, who is very interested in adapting Robert's script into a movie. There's one catch - the script is a tribute to Robert's partner, who died recently of AIDS after going through painful medical treatments, and Jeffrey wants to change the story to a heterosexual love story to assure the movie has wider commercial appeal. With an offer of a million dollars upfront for the script, Robert begrudgingly accepts the change, but then he meets Jeffrey's wife, Elaine, who becomes drawn to Robert through his deeply felt script. Her attraction is platonic but increasingly obsessive. At the same time, Robert and Jeffrey become lovers, and the plot dives headlong into intriguing twists relating to Internet chat rooms and layering deceptions that lead to a fatalistic conclusion.

Once again proving to be one of our most audacious actors, Peter Sarsgaard brings a fearlessly fey quality to Robert that allows his character to harden as the encroaching deceptions envelop him. Looking very much the part of the patrician, artistically frustrated Hollywood wife, Patricia Clarkson gives her typically sharp, insightful performance as Elaine especially as her efforts to manipulate Robert backfire into her own unfolding, painful situation. What she does very well is show the vulnerability of her character regardless of her misogynistic intentions. With his stentorian voice used in an ideal context, Campbell Scott finally shows some of the fire of his late parents (George C. Scott and Colleen Dewhurst) in exposing the deviously powerful character of Jeffrey ultimately rendered powerless by the circumstances.

Although the movie takes advantage of Los Angeles locations, including a stunning hilltop home (complete with infinity pool, of course), it still feels very much like a play especially in Lucas's use of talking head-shots and voice-overs to amplify the ennui of the chat room activity. Where the film goes somewhat awry is the series of developments in the last half-hour that lead to the ending where Robert's sense of paranoia brings certain facts to light and responses become increasingly contrived. Regardless, Lucas's gift for smart dialog and the three performances lend credence to the wildly implausible developments. With the hoopla over the wondrous "Brokeback Mountain" (which I just saw), it will be interesting to see if Jeffrey's mercenary comments about the box-office poison of gay-themed films will remain true.


If you like the glitzy Hollywood never-never land of the rich and beautiful and think that a few Buddhist sayings sprinkled in make it profound then this movie is for you. There is nothing about this story that is compelling to me. Is seems to be more about showing off a multi- million dollar piece of real-estate that anything else. There is no exploration of the family life or marriage of the couple and the "love affair" between the two men is completely unbelievable and stupid. The protagonist is supposed to be so broken up about the loss of his boyfriend that he quickly falls into bed with the married man, feeling no guilt that he is hurting the wife, who he actually likes better than the husband. We are supposed to feel his grief and think that the internet exchanges of silly Buddhist sayings based on deceptions is somehow deep. Its an insult to Buddhism, implying that new age aphorisms can be picked up by the Hollywood to try to get across some kind of message in a very superficial story. The sex isn't even erotic or convincing. So, why was this movie made? Why wasn't this one nipped in the bud? Sometime I can't believe the trash that Hollywood puts out!


Please don't let comments from confused viewers stop you from seeing this amazing film! It's been fixed! :)

Spoilers follow...but nothing that will ruin your enjoyment of the film, I promise. :)

Like a number of the people who have offered comments here, I saw a very early "preview" version of this film, and was left scratching my head a little bit. I enjoyed it, but was a wee bit confused about how exactly Elaine knew so many of Robert's secrets -- enabling her to convince him she was the ghost of Robert's dead lover. But tonight in New York City I attended the film's official premier (complete with spotlights and movie stars... very exciting!) -- and some small but very important changes have clarified the plot.

Craig Lucas' film directing debut is a revelation. He has created a very grown-up, intriguing, complex, fascinating story and coaxed spectacular performances out of some of the best actors on the scene today. (Lucas has directed stage productions before -- and done an artful, deeply moving job -- so he's not a totally-brand-new director.) He has done spectacular work on stage over the years, and now he is beginning to apply his genius to film work. I believe we're going to see much more amazing work from him. (He has written some terrific movies in the past -- such as Secret Lives of Dentists -- but he is relatively new to directing.)

The three lead actors here are amazing. Each of them can communicate more without speaking than a lot of actors can achieve with hours of dialog. I've loved Campbell Scott ever since "Longtime Companion," and his mature performance here fulfills the promise he showed in that film (also written by Lucas) over a decade ago. Peter Sarrsgaard veers from sweet to evil, from happy-go-lucky to seductive, with great ease, creating a likable character who does some very unlikable things -- like many real, flawed human beings. And Patricia Clarkson is entirely believable throughout the movie. That may seem like a simple thing, but not many actors can consistently carry it off. I believed what she was saying and doing at every moment. Without her steady performance, the movie could have really stumbled -- especially at a point where the viewer has to buy into a slightly implausible situation. She pulls it off. Robin Bartlett has a small role as a wise-cracking, cynical nanny, and is quite amusing in it -- much like her short but funny turn in another of my favorites, "Postcards From the Edge."

"The Dying Gaul" isn't the type of movie that does well in wide release, for a number of reasons. It's perhaps too much of an "art film" to be widely viewed by casual movie fans.

(And that title, while totally appropriate once you see the film, is a little too "high-brow" to do the movie any good. At least the filmmakers have the self-deprecating sense to make a couple of jokes about that, during the film -- Jeffry says no one will see a movie with that title.... But unfortunately, he's right.)

So, unless you live in a major city (or unless it gets the Oscar attention it richly deserves) you may not see it in a theater. But thankfully we live in an age when great movies can find an audience on home video -- and I predict that's what will happen here.


An excellent, contemporary, chilling look into the clash between art and Hollywood, soul and the devil, love and internet sex. A truly adult movie created with sharp writing and intelligent characters.

This is exactly the kind of movie I want to see. These characters are struggling in today's world with today's challenges. Discussion of many serious themes: art, mainstream, selling out.

Phenomenal acting from Patricia Clarkson and Campbell Scott. The cinematography is very interesting.

Deeply, pleasurably, joyously disturbing.

Don't miss.


Was lucky enough to view this at Sundance in Park City this past Monday morning in the Park City HS gym. Craig Lucas introduced the film and took questions after. The crowd was in awe of the acting, plot, the actual house where filmed etc. A wonderful film that hopefully will stun audiences. Patricia Clarkson, Peter Saarsgard and Campbell Scott were perfect in their roles. Was this purchased at Sundance? Is this subject matter going to make it on a national level with our present political situation so anti-gay? Mr. Lucas blasted our present president and our sorry political environment. He was thrilled with the film and the number of people in the audience at 9 in the morning. A treat of a film.


...but what a disappointment. The acting was superb. The cinematography was gorgeous. The stimulated sex, particularly the gay stuff, quite hot. However, the characters were totally unbelievable as everything was driven by plot line nothing by the characters. Surely to G-d this was not the first time Campbell Scott's character had stepped out on his wife so she must have known something was going on. He would have been clever enough to ensure she never found out. We are led to believe she is naive to the ways of the world and yet knows to how to find and hire a private detective and gather enough information to 'gaslight' another person so cleverly. This compassionate woman suddenly turns into a total freak? And the up and coming ('scuse the pun) screenwriter is supposed to be a man-of-the-world and yet believes his dead lover speaks to him in a computer chat room? The whole thing about the poisonous plants-gee, can you say "foreshadowing"? We rented the DVD and I left the room to do other things about half an hour before the end because I simply could not waste my time any longer.


Craig Lucas took his comic fantasy "Prelude to a Kiss" and created an update for the internet age, a noirish exploration of the same body/soul dichotomy, but this one ends badly.

By 'badly' I mean both the tragic arc of the story, and the failure to end the story in a cinematic way. What plays well on stage seems static here, wrapped up in confusion that poses as ambiguity.

DVD UPDATE: the video release offers an alternate ending that is far superior to the theatrical release. Who decides these things?

Regardless of a few problems with plot and direction, this is stellar work from a tremendous ensemble, and Lucas deserves high praise for the performances he draws from such singular talents. The three leads create a harmony that most movies never attempt, and for this alone the movie is a must see.


Clever, clever, clever. Craig Lucas' THE DYING GAUL turns the thriller genre blithely on its head with this trio of awful people who have little more in common than a moving, autobiographical screenplay that will receive a complacent makeover, sophisticated hypocrisy, and the pretense of friendship masking hidden agendas. Robert Sandrich is at the center of this story -- a writer who has child support to pay and is in dire need of a hit. He's written this fantastic, beautiful, evocative story that is based on his own life experience: a love story between two men that ends in the death of one of them, titled "The Dying Gaul." Jeffrey Tishop is a movie producer, and is interested... with one simple condition: it needs changing. American audiences, he says, hate gays, and will not go to the theatres to see a movie about two gay men in love. (The movie is set in the mid-90s.) Now, if Robert changes the male character -- Maurice, also the name of Robert's agent and longtime lover who has died -- into a woman, it would be perfect. Robert, understandably, is horrified: he's being asked the unthinkable, and he has his heart in this story. Jeffrey sleekly tells him, he loves the story -- and he's even shown it to Gus Van Sant (who at the time was at his peak). However, the change is necessary.

Robert bolts, but succumbs to one tiny little detail: one million dollars, payable to him immediately, to which he can after this one story do whatever he chooses to -- create stories of gay men left and right, ill or healthy. Robert is in a predicament... and he sells his soul.

Enter Elaine. She's a former screenwriter herself, now living the life of comfort in her Los Angeles house overlooking the sea. Jeffrey introduces her to Robert first via his screenplay, which moves her to tears (as he is deleting all 1172 instances of Maurice and changing it to Maggie). She later meets him for a night out at the movies, and she and Robert have the kind of chat that happens when two women are sharing innermost secrets. Among them is the fact that he's into internet chat and goes to a specific room in a system not unlike AOL. Curious about him -- maybe a little too much so -- she follows him into this chat room using a male identity and uncovers a little bit about him. Of course, the anonymity of internet chat makes people talk more than they should, and a later conversation between Elaine and Robert reveals something crucial, possibly hinted all throughout her marriage, but there, in front of her, typed words on a monitor.

Craig Lucas discloses himself as a great orchestrator of people approaching their own realities from an oblique path in his extremely well plotted out and near perfect story. His use of Steve Reich's music is stunning, and perfectly counterpoints the plot turns, as well as sounds per se -- like when Elaine discovers her husband's secret and a hose goes off, or the shrieks of the Tishop children at the beginning, bookended by something horrible at the end. If you can overlook the one point of the story where plausibility might be put into question -- the fact that Robert would be so gullible to answer an approach as naked as the one Elaine uses masquerading as "Sean" -- "Anyone here ever lost a lover?" -- then the rest of the story which follows is a careful construction of times suspense that doesn't swallow its conceit whole. Even so, the fulcrum here, online chat, holds itself well being that at the time there was this innocence about chat rooms. I would have to believe Robert had only recently taken it up after the pain of losing Maurice and his overwhelming loneliness, since he doesn't seem to have friends or a life outside his computer and fiction. Only then could it jell in a perfect seam. (Then again, anyone who's come into the Internet for the first time does so with a sense of novelty that only progressively, after much disappointment, loses its truthfulness.) Where the story somehow loses a little of its initial punch is when Elaine takes her online act further as "Arckangel1966". But, for there to be some form of suspense, it's probably the only way to convey this progressive bull-fight between her and Robert, and the presentation is certainly pitch-perfect in letting us see both actors talking directly to the camera and hear voice-overs of what they're typing, but also letting us hear her as her male counterpart -- in this case, Maurice himself. It's suspension of disbelief that pays off.

Neither of the three characters come off naked to us. I think it's a good thing because it gives their words, their actions, and even small gestures a hint of duplicity and doesn't allow anyone to come off smelling like a rose. Jeffrey, for example, states he's shown the script to Van Sant, but his eyes indicate otherwise. His attraction to Robert may be sexual, but masks the greed of having your cake and eating it too. Robert is just creepy: not a bad guy, but a little off, not above betrayal and even murder. Elaine's motives are, while understandable, more unclear. Baiting Robert with information she gets access to through a private investigator is plain ugly. In a way, she's a new kind of femme fatale -- one that under the guise of an identity can be anyone. This is one deadly threesome.

Craig Lucas' THE DYING GAUL is a complex film that despite some minor flaws stemming from its online conceit digs deep into the veneer of those who seem to have it all, and those who are trying to have it all. Patricia Clarkson, Campbell Scott, and Peter Sarsgaard are uniformly flawless in their characters and are reason enough to see this movie.


This is a gem of a film. Directed by Craig Lucas (I loved his LONGTIME COMPANION, also starring this film's star, Campbell Scott) it is adapted from the play centering around a young screenwriter who sells his story for a cool million. There are conditions which I won't divulge. See the movie. This is a love triangle in a strange scenario. Lucas brings many moments in this film by a closeup. While going into the internet chat rooms, he pulls out deep and dark thoughts from his leading player.

I thought Peter Sarsgaard, whom I recently admired in JARHEAD, did a remarkable job with a complex and difficult role. He brought a depth to his character. Patricia Clarkson, too, was outstanding. Campbell Scott brought a fine performance to the screen. These three players worked well together. Bouncing off each other like a pin ball machine. Scott redeemed himself with this as producer and actor from that bad movie he made LUSH. I'm not too familiar with Clarkson's work but will certainly look forward to other films after viewing this. Sarsgaard was remarkable in JARHEAD and doesn't disappoint me in this one. Hats off to the three stars and Lucas for a fine job.


I also saw this film at the first screening at the Seattle International Film Festival. Although I haven't seen the play, I thoroughly enjoyed the film adaptation. The story was intriguing enough with little twists and turns. The chemistry between the three main characters (played by Patricia Clarkson, Peter Sarsgaard and Campbell Scott) was wonderful. These are all fine actors and they definitely showcased their acting abilities in this film. Peter Sarsgaard was presented a special acting award by the SIFF organization before this screening and looking back at some of his previous works, I think this was well-deserved. The story might leave some unanswered questions but that's the beauty of endings that leave you asking some questions.


This is such a powerful movie. Without revealing any of the plot details, I will just say that at the "preclimactic" moment I thought it was anyone's guess as to which way the chips would fall... I was literally holding my breath in anticiaption.

The movie was beautifully shot, artfully written and skillfully acted. I can't shake the image of the characters as each realizes the life-altering consequences that their behavior had on themselves and each other.

I saw it at the Stony Brook Festival (July 2005) and hope it will be released nationally although I'm not so sure it's a film that will appeal to a wide audience. I admire Campbell Scott and his production company for making the film. I hope at the very least that it successfully plays the "art house" theaters and has a big DVD distribution. I think that word-of-mouth will take this film far among true movie lovers.


The film starts out with a quote from Herman Melville's MOBY DICK, "Woe to him who seeks to please rather than appall," which by the end turns out to be a commentary on the inner workings of Hollywood and if the main character played brilliantly by Peter Sarsgaard wants to be a part of that. In MOBY DICK, the quote is used to expound the point of telling the truth. Here, that's where the main struggle is also centered. Telling the truth and being honest, like in the movie CLOSER, becomes entangled in a deadly, KINSEY-like love triangle here. Campbell Scott (RODGER DODGER & DYING YOUNG) and Patricia Clarkson (PIECES OF APRIL & THE GREEN MILE) round out the cast and give amazing performances.


Until it jumps the tracks near the end, THE DYING GAUL is an interesting and literate film about relationships and suffering. But when it goes to the bad it does so in a big way.

Robert is a screenwriter who has written a script called THE DYING GAUL which derives from his own experiences. It's about a gay couple who sees the sculpture The Dying Gaul and how the pain of loss translates across the centuries. Robert has lost his life partner and is still suffering the loss.

Jeffrey and Elaine are a very successful couple. He's a Hollywood producer and they live in a mansion which in and of itself makes the film impressive. Jeffery likes Robert's screenplay and offers him a million dollars for it, but with one catch. The film would be big budget and high profile, and to justify that the couple needs to be a man and a woman.

To complicate matters, Jeffrey comes on to Robert. Big time.

The material at any point could have veered into farce. Instead, writer/director Craig Lucas tries and- for a long time succeeds- in trying to plumb the depth of the characters' souls.

Elaine begins to communicate with Robert through an online chat room. She pretends to be a man and, later, a man that Robert has known in the past. And this is where the story starts to unravel.

Elaine begins to assume the personality of Robert's late lover and soon convinces him that he's communicating with a ghost, veering awkwardly close to making the story an updated BLYTHE SPIRIT.

Eventually Jeffrey casually mentions to Robert how in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS a major character seeks to shed himself of an unwanted wife by homicidal means, and soon the project is off the tracks.

And in the final scene Lucas has a major character do something so out of character, so irrational, so atypical.... How bad a miscalculation is this plot twist? So bad that Lucas can't bring himself to stage it. Instead, it takes place offstage and is revealed in a phone conversation.

Flaws and all, this is still a mature and well thought out film. It's masterfully visualized and is a great vehicle for three talented performers. I'm convinced that fifty years from now film historians will be looking back and wondering why Campbell Scott wasn't a megastar from his first role on. As always his performance is rock solid.

It's good to see a well produced film that's made for grownups and isn't a special effects nightmare. Check out THE DYING GAUL.


The story in this film was simply different and I am sure reached many tender hearts who could share in the feelings of a triangle love which is beyond words. Jeffrey Tishop, (Campbell Scott) is a very powerful successful movie film executive who is married to Elaine Tishop, (Patricia Clarkson) and they have lovely children. There is a young writer who has written a screen play called "The Dying Gaul" and Jeffrey wants to buy the script so he can change the characters in the story. The young man needs the money so he accepts the one million dollars and becomes good friends with Elaine & Jeffrey. From this point on in the picture all the characters in the story become very much deeply involved with each other, almost in a spiritual way. This is a very warm and well produced picture.


The Dying Gaul is an intriguing little gem of a film.

The basic plot of the film is deceivingly simple: A gay screenwriter has written a film about two men deeply in love - one of whom dies of AIDS. The screenplay is excellent, but a powerful Hollywood producer will not support the film unless the writer changes the lovers to heterosexuals. The writer, at first, resists because the screenplay is based upon his relationship with his own deceased lover, but is soon won over by the charismatic producer. As the revision proceeds, the young writer becomes a frequent visitor to the producer's home where he forms a relationship with the producer's wife and children.

The complex relationship that develops amongst the writer, the producer, and the wife is what forms the crux of this compelling character study. To elaborate any further as to what takes place in these relationships would spoil the film for anyone wishing to see it, but it isn't pretty. I found myself often questioning the actions and motives of the characters as they proceeded in their games of one-upmanship. If these characters accurately represent the powerful figures of the film world, I can understand why it is often described as dog-eat-dog. Of course, malevolent and self-centered people exist in all strata of life, but wealth and glamour probably add their own extra serving of evil.

Strong acting makes this film especially watchable. Patricia Clarkson as the enigmatic wife is enthralling. Campbell Scott as the self-satisfied producer fascinates as he oozes charm and influence. And Peter Sarsgaard as the young writer gives a complex performance as a man who quickly learns the ways of manipulation from experts.

This is not a happy movie, and there are some pretty raw sexual scenes, but these three characters certainly captivate and hold your interest from beginning to end.


How to describe "The Dying Gaul." That is a challenge. It is very much like a play (which makes sense, seeing as it was adapted from one), and it makes one of the most skillful transitions from stage-to-screen that I have ever seen. It works like a play, but visually it thinks of itself as a movie. Confusing I know, but a person who has seen the movie will know what I'm talking about.

In terms of what genre "The Dying Gaul" fits into, it's more of a drama/mystery. It has a slight noirish tone to it, but this is not "The Big Sleep." The beginning is a drama, but its transition to mystery is perfectly executed with such a subtle build-up that looking back, it's hard to believe that the beginning was from the same movie as the end of it, or that it all was accomplished in 101 minutes.

Robert (Peter Saarsgard) has written a brilliant script after the death of his lover, Malcolm (Bill Camp). Movie producer Jeffrey Tishop (Campbell Scott) loves it, and wants to make it into a movie, but he insists that Robert change the relationship from homosexual to heterosexual. Jeffery's wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson) becomes interested in Robert, and then a few secrets are spilled which changes everything.

"The Dying Gaul" is really about the three characters. Everyone else has only a few token lines of dialogue at best that simply flesh out the story. The three actors-Saarsgard, Scott, and Clarkson, develop their roles well, and the three of them are fully three-dimensional. Ironically, while Saarsgard may have the most interesting character on paper, he's actually rather flat compared to Clarkson and Scott. Clarkson plays the housewife who still has a job even though she could easily live off of her husband's wealth, and she's not as clueless as many other movie housewives are.

Campbell Scott, though, is the real joy of "The Dying Gaul." At first he's a money-obsessed movie producer (the kind that seem to fill Hollywood these days), but as the movie goes on, he fleshes out his character and becomes a pretty sympathetic man. Scott dominates this movie, and it shows how truly gifted he really is.

As good as this film is, it isn't perfect. The music, particularly at the beginning is too loud and threatens to drown out everything else. The film also leaves a few questions open-ended even though doing so serves no purpose.

Still, "The Dying Gaul" manages to throw in a few unexpected twists and surprises, and it is very watchable and highly recommendable.


Vaguely at the center of THE DYING GAUL is a screenplay for a potential movie. The plot of the would-be movie, also called "The Dying Gaul," concerns a gay couple and what happens when one of them is faced with AIDS. It would make a perfect movie, so says the studio exec who wants to buy it and film it, except that the couple really doesn't have to be gay. And it doesn't really have to be called "The Dying Gaul." And I guess it doesn't really have to be about AIDS. And, when you get right down to it, the plot of this film itself doesn't really have to be about Hollywood, screen writing, homosexuality, AIDS, infidelity or betrayal. But it has to be about something for it to be worth our time. And it isn't.

Strip away the pretentiousness of the supposed noble symbolism of "the Dying Gaul," brush aside the trendiness of it being set in Hollywood, and forget the faux importance of it exploiting AIDS; and THE DYING GAUL is nothing but a gimmicky soap opera with a contrived and not-particularly-honest twist. It's a love triangle wherein the anonymity of an internet chat room not only becomes a vehicle for deceit but the basis for a seemingly supernatural scam. Lovers and/or rivals building a wicked web of lies out of disguises is as old as drama, be the pretense coming in the form of masked balls, con games, mistaken identities, innocent pen pal letters or CB radios. Playing such duplicity for laughs, this sort of romantic misdirection can work nicely, but THE DYING GAUL has less in common with YOU'VE GOT MAIL than with the gloomy, pseudo-realism of overwrought junk like CLOSER.

The neophyte screenwriter is Robert (Peter Sarsgaard), who wrote the script to honor his deceased partner, Malcolm. Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) is the producer who wants to make the movie, but insists that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, pain and loss is universal -- but straight pain and loss is more commercial. He should know, Jeff is bisexual and seems more interested in Robert's sword than his pen. But Jeff loves his wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), who becomes fast friends with Robert, until she figures out that the two guys are collaborating in more ways than one. So far, so good. Then writer/director Craig Lucas derails his entire project by letting his entire film become hijacked by a lame and contrived gimmick. Elaine, using a fake identity, begins exchanging messages with Robert via the internet and convinces the already disturbed writer that he is actually communicating with the spirit of his dead lover. Apparently DSL reaches as far as Heaven's gate.

Even as the film prattles on about mythic themes and makes references to famed art and literature, yet sells out to a lame technological gimmick, it still has potential. Elaine suddenly has the power to control Robert and, indirectly, her husband. But Elaine doesn't know what to do with her newfound power, and unfortunately neither does Lucas. The confused story takes a dark turn and it is obviously headed for tragedy, but Lucas balks at making the film either an outright thriller or even a psychologically twisted comedy. He has a cast of morally bankrupt characters (well acted by excellent actors), but he seems unwilling to let any of them be the villain. Each are painted as being capable of killing, but when death finally takes a role in the story it is left frustrating unclear whether a murder was even committed. The ambiguity is meant to be clever or disturbing or shocking, but it is really just a sign of incredibly bad writing.

The film certainly doesn't play to our expectations. Lucas is an acclaimed gay playwright and is probably best known for his script for LONGTIME COMPANION, a landmark in gay cinema. So when the film at first appears to be about the integrity of gay fiction -- compromising orientation and honesty to pander to a straight public -- there is a promise of THE DYING GAUL being a story of substance. But that quickly evaporates when the ineffectual Robert far too easily sells out his values -- literary and sexual -- to the charming and pragmatic bisexual Jeffrey. Then there is the hope that the film will be about redemption, about Robert regaining his self-respect and ethics -- but that never materializes and if anything the characters grow increasingly amoral -- and increasingly less interesting.

Ultimately, the story seems intent on proving Jeffrey right, that the sexuality of the protagonists is irrelevant; straight or gay, it is all the same, good and evil are hardly relevant. And, I suppose, there is some minor victory to be had by Lucas showing no need to be politically correct by making Robert neither a role model nor a tragic hero -- but just another unredeemable human wretch. But the victory is very small and no more meaningful or gratifying than Robert's ultimate reward.

And for what is worth, Jeffrey is right; THE DYING GAUL is a lousy title.


I really enjoyed this film, I was not sure where it was going to go - so that just added to the suspense. I thought the performances were all terrific and the plot held quite a few surprises - none of which were easy to anticipate. I loved the writing and thought it was a very intelligent representation of what can go wrong when human lust and emotions get out of control. The photography was superb and I would love to live in the house that is all through the movie. It is so interesting human behaviour and what can push us over the brink so to speak and this is primarily what this movie is about - human emotion and psychology and what us humans can be capable of - it is truly an original and spellbinding movie.


Besides some of the plot holes that I still can't figure out, I was rather captivated by The Dying Gaul. For the love of God, someone give Peter Sarsgaard an Oscar already  if not for this movie, then just for everything he's ever done. Sarsgaard effortlessly steals every scene he's in! In The Dying Gaul he plays Robert, a gay screenwriter who is still mourning the death of his lover, Malcolm. He still sleeps with Malcolm's pajamas and puts them back into a Ziploc baggie at the end of each night. Robert writes a script based on Malcolm's slow and painful death and calls it The Dying Gaul.

Jeffrey (Campbell Scott) is a big time Hollywood producer who wants to make Robert's film on the condition that Robert writes out all of the homosexual content. Jeffrey tells him, "Most Americans hate gay people, wouldn't you agree?" The irony is that Jeffrey is attracted to Robert and starts an affair with him, behind his wife's back. It gets more bizarre when Jeffrey's wife, Elaine (Patricia Clarkson), becomes obsessed with Robert. When she learns that her husband is sleeping with Robert, all hell breaks looseliterally. The depth that these characters go to in order to punish and torture each other is evil incarnate! The Dying Gaul is hard to follow at times, but it's brilliant, painful, shocking, and Sarsgaard deserves a damn Oscar already!


Watching 'The Dying Gaul' reminded me of watching 'The New Age' (Michael Tolkin, 1994). Both share the same facility for 'false grip' that keeps the viewer attending to the action while at the same time mentally numbing one into a false sense that there is any meaning to the whole thing. Perhaps that is the key, referring to the root of the poisonous plant found in the chic ultra-fab Malibu seaside manse's garden which, in the long run (spoilers begin here) acts as a deus ex machina at the end the movie. When the end does arrive I thought, of course, it had to be, what else could possibly have happened to bring this lolloping turkey to a conclusion. The script is a mish-mash of Buddha/Werner Erhard philosophical self-help and becomes a bit eye-rolling at times.

Having said all that, I enjoyed many aspects of 'The Dying Gaul', not least of which were the performances of Patricia Clarkson and Peter Sarsgaard. But, like Judy Davis and Peter Weller in 'The New Age', all their great gifts of reaction to the words cannot mitigate the nebulous quality of the entire project. What IS the point? Is it another Gay Rage film, taking dark-humored revenge on the closeted bi-sexual married couples that abound across the landscape, or is Robert Sandrich (the screenwriter) just another serial killer....? Who knows. It is this mysteriousness that several of my friends were intrigued by and spent many hours discussing and reaching no conclusions. One of my film buff chums went way out on a wine-driven limb about how it was about the Reality of Cyberspace and all kinds of flapdoodle about melding karmas in chat rooms or some such stuff that is posited by the Sarsgaard character early in the film. Then the conversation veered off into other theories as to what this movie was about. When THAT happens in a conversation about a film I become immediately suspicious of its basic integrity. In other words, it is pretty much a pile of cow pats. Only a really great director can pull off such cinematic enigmas; I'm thinking of Peter Weir's masterpiece 'Picnic of Hanging Rock'.

There is thinking and there is Thinking. 'The Dying Gaul' calls up the lesser of the two, amounting in the end to cinematic wool-gathering, rather like this comment is becoming, so I won't continue much longer.

Basically I think this movie is a woman's revenge movie that backfires dreadfully. But as all the main characters are fairly reprehensible it had no emotional impact at all, it sort of went "phut" at the end when I think I was supposed to be devasted or something. Or perhaps this was part of the black humor bit that I didn't get. But I don't see much funniness in the deaths of children. If 'The Dying Gaul' is someone's idea of 'Black Humor' then I have definitely lived too long.

This is a bitter, cruel, nasty movie that provokes puzzlement but little follow-up interest, at least for me. But worth viewing for Clarkson and Sargaard's performances and Steve Reich's interesting score.


A naked room, a dead old woman lies on a wooden coffin, across the coffin we see her son. His head down, his face slightly contorted. We move in to notice with a chill that he's just trying to get some dirt from under his fingernails. Mersault. Visconti's Mersault inspired by Camus's Mersault. The film was attacked in its day and the Albert Camus's purists shouted blue murder or worse, they didn't say a word. Visconti knew what he was doing. He chose Marcelo Mastroianni to play Mersault. By that choice alone he was departing from Camus's intentions and yet, if you read the book today and see the film today, Mastroianni is Camus's Mersault. It is the driest of all Visconti films. His toughest. Mastroianni gives a performance that defies description. If you've seen more than once,"XXX" by choice, I don't promise you that you'll surrender, automatically, to the power of this film, but I can assure you that both films belong to the same Universe, yours, ours. Give it a try. Then, you tell me.


Although completely panned by critics and Visconti fans ever since its release, I happen to think that this is probably Visconti's best film.

For starters, I was never a Visconti fan. I always thought of him as a talented window-dresser rather than a great or even a good filmmaker (Bertolucci has inherited his mantle). So I wasn't surprised that he thought he could make a halfway decent film adaptation of Camus' great novel. That he happened to do so was a complete surprise to me.

Though dubbed by a French actor, Mastroianni makes a superb Meursault. And Anna Karina was never more beautiful (especially in her first nude scene). The locations are chosen well, though it's often hard to remember that Visconti was trying to stick to the period of the novel (1930s Algiers). There are a handful of other fine performances, and Giuseppe Rotunno uses a palette of colors that is a study in itself.

Piero Piccioni summoned up a bleak, modernist musical score that suitably catches the somberness of the material. This film is an unrecognized and almost forgotten example of what an overrated "auteur" can do when budget limitations and a combination of good casting and a talented crew come together in a highly serious attempt at adapting a great novel. (And it is far better than Visconti's later prissy adaptation of Mann's "Death in Venice.")


Visconti brings to life the Camus novel with the minimum of dialog and surreal visuals.

Algiers sweats. The sun's glare beats down and doesn't let up--right up to the courtroom scene where one watches a dazed Mastroianni in the foreground while the fans of the jury members move in constant motion in a soft-focus background. Much of the film has a dreamlike feel that fuses with the existential blankness felt by Mastroianni's character.

I recall this film playing frequently in San Francisco at the Times Theater back in the early stoner 70's. And with the 70's, this film has all but disappeared. One only hopes that all of Visconti's films will someday make it to DVD--but especially The Stranger!


Too bad it's not available on VHS or DVD, when I first saw this film years ago I was blown away , the mood it evokes is totally what living life day to day is all about , pure existentialism, my father was one and I have some of that in me , so I totally got it , Life is but a fleeting moment by moment .Existentialist ,Camus was one along with Sartre it's the same day everyday ,only we ,measure our own decay with the man made notion of time.Based on Camus's novel This film will either impress you or bore you.But then again it all depends on how you look at life. If you enjoyed films such as Fellini's "La dolce Vita" or "wager with the devil" then you will certainly enjoy "The Stranger"


I've just finished watching Luchino Visconti's 1967 adaptation of Albert Camus novel The Stranger (aka The Outsider) and I want to share my thoughts. I'll start by saying that it's been a few years since I read the book but a review of the film I skimmed before watching it and my own surprisingly thorough recollection indicates that Visconti's film is a rather close adaptation.

The central premise of The Stranger is that Mersault, a normal man, commits a crime accidentally and is punished ostensibly for that crime but actually for his inability to fit in with the absurd society that he is a part of. This society is apparently bent on upholding traditions with no regard for the differences in individuals: Meursault is often emotionless when society expects him to be most emotional.

At the beginning of the film Meursault goes to his mother's funeral and appears rather stoic. We learn later that he sees death as a natural part of life; just as she has lived she must die. For Meursault mourning his mother's death would be like mourning a sunrise. Meursault and his mother's relationship had actually ended on good terms when she was alive and there was no reason for him to heap honors on her when she could no longer benefit from them. Unlike most people, Meursault isn't willing to show off emotionally for others.

Next we see Meursault having a relationship with an attractive woman about his own age. Society expects these two to fall in love and get married; this is something that the woman never thinks twice about. Our hero just doesn't see the point, however: he's happy enough to enjoy this woman's company but he doesn't feel like committing himself to her for the rest of his life. It's logical: why should he change things when they are going well already? Once again he isn't willing to pretend in order to conform to society's expectations.

The central event in the film is the a murder committed by Meursault. Due to his friend's indiscretion with a young woman Meursault is drawn into a fight with that woman's brother and some other men. One of the men has a knife and Meursault's friend produces a gun: fearing a hasty murder he takes the gun away from the man and sticks it into his pocket. Later, by chance, he runs into the knife wielding man again: he thinks he sees the knife (its ambiguous whether it's actually there or just some other object that reflects the sun) and shoots the man several times.

At his trial Meursault once again refuses to conform to expectations: he doesn't care what the judge or jury thinks of him. The trial is utterly absurd; more is said about his lack of emotion at his mother's funeral than his actual crime. Essentially, he is on trial for being a noncomformist.

In prison we see that he doesn't regret what he's done though he may regret the absurd world he lives in. In fact he gets most emotional when he runs across his opposite: a man who is so caught up in conformity that he is little more than a shadow of a man. That man is of course a priest and it's obvious that the story is meant to show contempt for this non thinker. The utter absurdity of a man who shuns logic preaching to a logical man is almost too much for both of them but it's the priest who must retreat from the cell.

The Stranger successfully portrays the difficulty a logical, self aware man has living in an absurd conformist society thus encapsulating Camus' Existentialist philosophy.

Visconti's film is a bit hard to separate from the source; the film has some brilliant ideas but they're just copied over. Still, I think even copying these ideas successfully into a new medium is pretty impressive. The film also does a really excellent job with lighting. Someone could surely write a nice essay about the lighting in this film but I won't bore you further with an attempt to do so, I know this is a bit long. Still, this was my first Visconti and I was pretty impressed. I find it a bit inexplicable that many people dislike this and don't think it expresses the novel's ideas very well.


I first saw this movie more than 30 years ago whilst studying French in high school. At the time, I thought that the movie captured the atmosphere of the place (well as I thought I understood it as a callow youth!); and of the state of the "hero's" mind, which is ultimately the most important aspect of this book/movie.

We studied this book as an example of Albert Camus' existentialist philosophy (which is succintly stated in my summary above); both the film and the book seem to encapsulate this perfectly. The hero lives a life in which it seems that he doesn't really care what happens to him or what he does to others. Perhaps in another age he may have been labelled a psychopath. Certainly he seems to both under-react and over-react (and quite grossly too, in both directions) to many events that occur to him. And indeed he simply seems to float along the stream of life so that events occur TO him; rather than he be in control of his life.

One fascinating sidebar was that the book we were reading in French was supposedly the untouched original; yet an English translation that one of my fellow students had contained the odd extra paragraph! One of these was quite significant in that it described a rather violent homosexual relationship that the hero had whilst in prison.

Another amusing point is that the book has one throw-away line about a sexy red and white striped dress that Marie is wearing on one occasion; and the movie faithfully shows this. Please don't attach any significance to this other than as a bit of throw-away humour.


This movie is hilarious. Although it does have a little bit of cumbersome acting and it obviously didn't have much of a budget, it is a solidly funny movie with some great characters. I loved it the first and only time I saw it years ago on HBO or Showtime of something like that and I laughed my ass off. I spent 5 years as a Graphic Designer and found myself remembering it constantly, with the phrase "Aaaaaadvertising" going through my head with a smile. The only thing is that I can't seem to find it anywhere to buy. Netflix doesn't even have it and they have, like, everything. Before reading the stats on it, I was sure it was a small time Canadian film that only made it to pay cable. At any rate, if anyone knows where I can find this little movie on DVD it would be very helpful. Otherwise, if you haven't seen it and get a chance to, DO check it out. Besedes possibly being one of your only chances to catch it, it's very fun.


This is a low budget and very accurate portrayal of the world inside a big advertising agency. The movie isn't that great unless you have worked in that field specifically as a creative or as an account executive. first time I saw it I thought it was lame but with time and appreciation for independent films I developed a special appreciation for this movie after working at an advertising agency for 3 years.

It's a must see for anyone who feels like entering that career.

If anyone has a copy or a DVD of this please let me know I would like to buy one.

Enjoy


Advertising has never really been accurately portrayed on TV or in the movies. "Suits" does the best job of any show/movie in giving viewers a closer look at agency life. Maybe real-life creatives aren't all having sex in their offices (or I'm working in the wrong places), but most of what you see is spot-on. Sure, they take some license with certain characters (not all account executives are back-stabbing clothes-horses). But it wouldn't have been as interesting without a bit of exaggeration. I didn't really think it was a 10, but I rated it as such because I felt all the other ratings were too low.


Like many people, I grew up "Loving" Annette Funicello. This wonderul movie has so many treats besides her biography. It depicts life in the 50's in Hollywood - Walt Disney's discovery of Annette, the making of the Mickey Mouse Club, a young Paul Anka, Frankie Avalon, and later Frankie Avalon & Shelly Fabares playing their adult selves. Most of all, the film has such "heart" and is so moving & inspiring as Annette discovers and deals with her MS disease. Hopefully soon the film will go to DVD and some or all of the profits will help with the fight of this disease. If you are lucky enough to catch it on TV - tape it!!


Although she grew up in what many would describe as a fairy-tale world, this movie shows that not all Hollywood productions are "happily ever after". I was glad to see that, unlike many biographies, Annette chose to tell the true story, both happy and sad. Her failed relationship with Paul Anka, her divorce from Jack, and her subsequent revealing of her MS, shows what a strong and wonderful person she is. A true stroke of genius by the writers, directors, producers, and Annie herself to use the real Annette throughout the movie and to use her real family during Gina's wedding. I hope her surgery in 1999 was successful and that she is doing well.


I have always been a Fan of the Beautiful and Talented Annette Funicello. In fact I own a VHS of this movie that I was fortunate enough to buy on eBay which was sent out prior to the movie being shown on television. I understand that these are sent out to the Lucky folks who decide on whether on not the movie should be part of an awards show, like the Oscars etc. On the top of the cover it says " for your consideration" Outstanding made for Television Movie, A Dream is a Wish Your Hearts Makes, for your consideration Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or Special, Annette Funicello. This VHS has of course become a Prize in my Annette Collection. The movie is Wonderful. It gives a lot of insight into the life of Annette. Seeing Annette again is a great experience, especially now that the disease MS has done so much to her physically, and yet she chose to do this to help make all aware of the devastation of this disease. She is so Warm and Lovingly kind in the movie that you can't help but Love and Respect her. It is definitely a Movie worth watching.


This movie was a great way to get some understanding of someone who seems to have been famous forever. It's fun and keeps moving, but at times it was hard to keep track of the passage of time in the film. It didn't seem clear how much time was passing from scene to scene and, before I knew it, it was 1987.


Roberta and Mike Findlay made over a dozen nudie/sickie/roughies in the 60s and early 70s, culminating with SNUFF in the late 70s. Of all those films, the FLESH trilogy is the most memorable. TOUCH OF HER FLESH, CURSE OF HER FLESH, and KISS OF HER FLESH were three sickie classics starring Robert West as Richard Jennings, a one-eyed psycho who kills strippers in sadistic ways. This was his beginning and is a tad boring, but pays off.

Richard Jennings witnesses his wife having sex with another man and runs into traffic. Losing one eye and temporarily paralyzed from the waist down, Richard vows his vengeance and vents his frustration while searching for his wife by killing strippers in inventive ways. He sends one a rose with thorns dipped in poison, shoots a poison dart into the stomach of another, and by the finale, a dagger, a buzzsaw, and a crossbow fit into the whole mess.

TOUCH OF HER FLESH is really sick. First the audience is treated to coy sex scenes and stripping/go-go scenes, followed immediately by scenes of death and gore. I guess that's why they call them sickies. All the acting is bad, but most of the women would fit right in a Russ Meyer film! Top-heavy tarts make up most of the nudity here, which is pleasing to the eye and sort of differentiates this from other films of its kind. There are some good instances of cinematography and editing that are above par in an exploitation film as well.

TOUCH OF HER FLESH is not for everyone and will probably offend those looking for a softcore sex film from the 60s. The version I saw was cut, as the film only ran an hour (original running time is 70 minutes), but the sex was not graphic; it's the gore that should draw audiences. Sadistic viewers should enjoy it, but I'm surprised cries of misogyny haven't plagued this film from its release! Not heartily recommended, but is worth a look if you're curious. And you should be if you're reading a review of this!


The perfect ten rating I gave this film has nothing to do with its technical merits. It's not a particularly well-written film at all. The acting, for the most part, is wooden (with one BIG exception). The music is strictly canned library music. But it's still at ten. It's a ten because, as a cinematic experience, there is nothing else quite like watching the work of Michael and Roberta Findlay. Nothing else compares. And if the goal of cinema is to take you into another world, this is the film that will do it, albeit a sick, claustrophobic, dirty one which will leave you drained and in desperate need for a shower.

Other reviews cover the plot of this film sufficiently. What I'd like to focus on is the way this movie feels. Like other low-budget but truly inspired masterpieces - "Last House on Dead End Street" comes to mind as the perfect example - this film's technical flaws add to its creepiness. This film has no gloss with which to reassure us, and its starkness makes it that much more compelling.

The standout performance I mentioned at the outset of this review is, of course, that of Michael Findlay. The fact that he stars in this film is no coincidence. In fact, nobody else could have done it, since what we're seeing in this film - as in most of the Findlay collaborations - is a very, very personal vision, a celluloid representation of the dark demons haunting one man's mind. While no one is suggesting that Findlay was anything like the obsessed monster of a man he portrays on the screen here - there is much evidence to the contrary, in fact - there isn't any doubt that Findlay wasn't exorcising demons from his own psyche with these films, which, for me, is what makes them so compelling. On screen, Findlay's hammy, bloated performances would be laughable if you didn't know you were watching someone acting out of the depths of his mind, which makes them both disturbing and compelling at the same time.

An interesting experiment in watching these films is to compare it to similar, contemporary films, such as "Saw." While the violence in the latter movie is much more graphic, there's an intensity in Findlay's work which it can't even come close to.

I say all these things only to the special few with the capacity to digest film this way, and I don't expect that to be a particularly large group. You know who you are. And you'll see this film for what it is.


Michael Findlay and his wife Roberta were responsible for quite a few cult classics of sleaze in the 60s and 70s, and "The Touch Of Her Flesh" is one of the films that earned the couple their cult-status amongst lovers of sleazy Grindhouse cinema. This is a film that is recommendable to my fellow fans of cult-sleaze for a pioneering character. As probably many other Exploitation fans out there, however, I must say that my admiration of this film, and my acknowledgment of its pioneering cult character exceeds the actual fun that I had watching it. It is definitely entertaining to watch, but then again, the long scenes of women dancing seductively etc. may have been sleazy and exciting then, but they are quite dated and overlong for today's standards, especially due to the fact that these sequences are very tame compared to what was to come in the 70s. This is also what is to acknowledge about this film however as it is pioneering in its sleaze and weirdness. There is little talking, or, more precisely, dubbing, as people never look at the camera when they talk, which is quite annoying at times. I know this from a bunch of older films, but this is definitely the only film from the late 60s I've seen, that still uses this form of dubbing, which really needs getting used to. Nothing but the low budget can take the blame for that, however.

After catching his catching his exotic dancer girlfriend with another man, a troubled arms dealer gets involved in an accident. Reciovering from his heavy injuries, the man has become a psychopath on the hunt for sexy women to murder...

This is the first part in a trilogy of "Flesh" films. I have yet to see the sequels "The Kiss Of Her Flesh" and "The Curse Of Her Flesh", and Ia am exited to do so, as I have big respect for this little cult flick, and I highly recommend any lover of Exploitation cinema to see it. People who are not as familiar with exploitation cinema will probably find it crappy, since one has to perceive this film's pioneering character in order to acknowledge it adequately. The film has more than just a sentimental value of originality, however. Director Michael Findlay also stars in the role of psycho Richard Jennings, and the guy's craziness is very entertaining to watch. Female eye candy is also omnipresent throughout the film. It is interesting to see how beauty trends change, as "The Touch Of Her Flesh" concentrates on the display of big breasts and buxom curves. This is not a movie I'd recommend to everybody, but I strongly advise my fellow fans of sleazy Grindhouse cult not to miss it. This is pure cult cinema, and for Exploitation fans like myself it has a certain value as a pioneering classic of weird sleaze. Be warned though: it tends to bore.


If you would look up the term "misogyny" in the dictionary, there's a fair chance there will be a poster image of this little movie next to it. The DVD box describes this film as one of the most shameless, sordid and sleaziest exploitation movies of the sixties, and also one of the most inexplicably profitable ones. Apparently "Touch of her Flesh" was a huge success in the so-called Grindhouse circuit and almost promptly  within just one year  spawned two similarly titled sequels. Well, all these aforementioned things may be true but the reputation should also include that "Touch of her Flesh" is dreadfully boring and contains an impossibly high amount of insufferable padding sequences. Richard Jennings, a dork with a passion for weapons, walks in on his wife having sex (well  more of a breasts-fondling marathon, really) with another guy, runs out of the house whiningly and bumps into a car. Short one eye but with a hatred towards women that keeps increasing, he goes out to kill random girls that use their luscious bodies to seduce poor and defenseless men. His victims include a go-go dancer, a prostitute and a nude model before going after his own unfaithful wife again. Admittedly this sounds pretty horrific and like the ideal sexploitation guff, but unfortunately the actual murders take less than a seconds whereas the "preludes" seem to last forever! Okay, granted, these girls are pretty hot and they all have sensational racks, but watching them swing around for ten whole minutes is just plain dull. Jennings' monologues are what make this a true 60's sick-flick, as he compares women with everything that is filthy, unreliable and scum. "Touch of her Flesh", as well as its two sequels, is the work of the notorious director's due (and married couple) Michael and Roberta Findley. Together, they made a lot of infamous but overall terrible exploitation flicks. Ironically enough, Roberta delivered her best work ("Tenement: Game of Survival", "The Oracle") after her hubbie died in a helicopter crash


LIVING DOLL doesn't live up to some of the other necrophilia-themed horror films in terms of sleaziness or "graphicness", but I personally found it enjoyable, despite it's flaws. It's no NEKROMANTIK or anything - but I got a kick out of it...

Howard is mildly obsessed with Christine, the girl who runs the flower stand in the hospital that they both work at. Christine already has a boyfriend and hardly knows that Howard exists. When she dies following a car accident - Howard decides now is the perfect time to get to "know" her a little better...

LIVING DOLL is not a very graphic film, though there are a few gore scenes, and the decaying corpse make-up FX are top-notch. This film reminded me more of a Frank Henenlotter type of film, but with a more "serious" tone. I think that watching Howards sanity decay at the same rate as his new "girlfriends" corpse, is an interesting thing to behold. My only gripes with the film is that there's no even slightly-graphic necro-action, as the story is more centered around their (or I should say, Howards PERCEIVED) "relationship" - not the sexual aspects of it. That was a let-down as I feel that any proper necro-film should have a good "shock" sequence in it. The other thing that I found somewhat distracting, is that this is a British film that did some very short filming in New York - and is obviously supposed to be set in the States, but the actors are obviously Brits and have a hard time deciding what accent to use. Not a huge problem - just a minor annoyance. Personally, I recommend this one, but I don't think everyone will dig it as much as I did. I think it's going to be considered too "un-graphic" and tame for those that are expecting some hardcore necro-sickness...8/10


Infamous schlock producer Dick Randall's last film (or last released film, anyway) turns out to be a surprisingly good and grim little horror yarn.

Medical student Howard falls in love with the girl who sells flowers at the hospital where he works. She barely knows he exists. Then one day a body is brought into the morgue and Howard has to assist in the autopsy. Only too late does he realize it's the lovely Christine herself laid out on the cold slab. How this shock affects his already delicate mental balance and what he does to deal with this terrible state of affairs makes this a highly diverting outing for fans of the macabre Mark Jax is great as the disturbed Howard. He never once camps it up and plays even the most ridiculous moments straight. The SFX and make up on the mouldering corpse are excellent,. The plot takes plenty of surprising turns and the final sick twist raised a smile or two.

Great news that this will soon be out on DVD  and in an extras packed special edition.

If you like big studio, star-filled extravaganzas, then this is not for you. But if you're looking for something out of the ordinary, you'll not be disappointed.


Okay let me get this out of the way first thing. I know I come down hard on certain movies but to be fair I do try to find the good in just abot every movie I review. Well not this time! This movie deserves everything it gets! Why? Stick with me.

Medical student Howard (Mark Jax) is one sick puppy. In fact he would make a good workmate with Bob from NEKROMANTIC. Howard is in love with Christine (Kate Orgill) who works in the flower shop of the hospital but he is too shy to even give her a flower. Christine also has an abusive boyfriend and you just know that Howard will do something about that . . . eventually; but I am getting ahead of myself.

One night a cadaver comes into the morgue and it turns out to be . . . wait for it . . . Christine! He does not buy the boyfriend's story about Christine's drunk driving causing an accident. Well this pushes Bob, who was thirty cents short of a quarter to begin with, right over the edge. He steals her body from the grave and makes her his roommate; he buys her clothes, cooks her meals and so on. In his own sick mind she responds warmly but in real life she is slowly rotting into one very gross looking paperweight. It isn't long before she is talking to him and suggesting he do . . . well . . . certain things.

So does he go on a killing spree? NO! It takes over an HOUR of screen time before he gets revenge for Christine's death. Does he bother to get even with his mean landlady (Eartha Kitt, who must have been starving at the time) or his sleazebag boss? NO! This is the sorriest example of a terror movie I have seen in many moons! Howard's boss dies but it's fron natural causes! No, that was not meant to be a sapoiler. This whole darn movie is a spoiler in itself!

If you want an example of a scary movie involving corpses see Jorg Buttgereit's NEKROMANTIC. This British import will leave a bad taste in your mouth, sort of like rotten meat.


Having some Mexican-Indian blood in me, I've always been interested in what I could read about the Aztecs and Mayans and others. But never did I achieve as elaborate a vision in my head, try as I might, as Mel Gibson has with the beautiful Apocalypto. Is it accurate? I've more than just strong doubts in at least one case, but like all good fiction, it probably tells more truth, despite its inaccuracies, than a dozen scholarly tomes. The movie is engrossing and, even more difficult, plausible and quite evocative. I would have bet any amount of money that this movie was impossible to make. And though some have complained that the film's ending involves an historical inaccuracy, I think there was more than enough reason to put it in.

There's a strong story that reminded me of other Third World folklore I've read, only better. In a lot of ways these people could have been North American Indians, but somehow that's not much of a criticism. And Gibson's recent PR problems only highlighted, for me, how it took an Australian-reared actor to make an exciting film about natives before Columbus. Clearly Hollywood is incapable of even conceiving of such a movie, much less bringing it brilliantly to life. Hollywood has an agenda and very narrow perspectives. It's agenda has no room for illuminating the humanity of non-Westerners, and there's too much relying on the same old set of sensibilities and intuition. I think if Hollywood is up in arms it ought to be because Gibson is making them look inept.

But as to this particular subject matter, there's no doubt in my mind that what fascinates most Anglos about the Aztecs and the Maya is the idea of human sacrifice. Gibson depicts the ritual as having an element of frenzy to it, and he may be right, but what is more convincing to me, at least, is his idea of what a village raid must have been like. His point by point reconstruction is pretty compelling, and I'm quite sure he could make some early American military raids on Indian villages so vivid and unforgettable that grown men would cry. I only hope he does, but as to this film, I would have depicted the human sacrifice with a nod toward a notion most Anglos find completely foreign, namely that these people understood that gain often entails pain, and they were willing to pay the price. Was it really so unreasonable that these people thought God might want them to create pain, and not just endure it, to gain His favor given that life entails so much struggle anyway? That willingness to endure pain clearly survives today, not the desire to create it in others, and that's the only point I would have added to this wonderful film.


A family drama like no other. Two hours plus that rush at the speed of light. This is cinema. I'm sorry but it is. Don't look for inner meanings. This is the work of one of the greatest artists of our time. Yes, I'm talking about Mel Gibson. And as most of the great artists, he's bound to be controversial, erratic and infuriating sometimes but, thank God he exists. He's always going to surprise us for better or worse in sickness and in health. There are no intellectual under pinnings here. This is an adventure flick that takes us to places we've never been before. It entertains and moves and startles. Masterfully shot at a breathless pace that never, ever, lets go. And then, of course, the acting - if you can call it that. The most remarkable performances by an ensemble cast of unknowns. Gloroious faces that speak louder than words. Well, as you may have guessed. I'm overwhelmed by the experience. Thank you Mel, thank you very much.


The reviewers are trying to damn this movie with an untruthful and insincere mantra about its alleged excess of violence: "brutally violent," "over-the-top violence," "unrelenting violence," "ultraviolent," "The Hills Have Eyes in the jungle," "unpleasant, pointless, gruesome, and exploitative," "pure, amoral sensationalism," "blood and gore  so extreme that they provoke titters of ridicule," "savage cruelty and sadistic barbarity," "lunatic violence," "feverish, mad violence." You'd think from the reviews that you were going to see two hours of babies being fed through a wood chipper. One went as far as to claim that it made the Saw movies seem like Little Women or some such nonsense.

It does no such thing. The Saw films were gratuitously and sadisticly violent; they set out to make audiences squirm and blanch at their sick, nihilistic machinations.

Apocalypto, on the other hand, is the typical, essentially optimistic Disney story of a happy Indian youth ripped savagely from his rainforest life by ruthless marauders, after which he has to escape and fight his way back to his land and people. That's it.

The violence arises from the fact that these particular marauders are bloodthirsty Mayan warriors harvesting neighboring tribes for their human sacrifices. Even then, much of the violence is Shakespearean and takes place just off-camera. For instance, you see women being carried off in the rape-and-pillage scene and you hear their cries but you don't see them being raped and murdered. Battles are staged much as they were in Braveheart. And yes, there's a beating heart lifted from a sacrificed man's chest by a blood-streaked Mayan shaman, but moviegoers saw the same thing in Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom; it got a PG rating and we read no critical hysterics about "lunatic violence." On the whole, you'll see as much blood and gore on the average CSI episode.

It probably should have been titled Jaguar Paw's Great Adventure. The glimpses Gibson provides of Mayan civilization are jaw-dropping. You won't ever see a more convincing cinematic evocation of another time and place in such scope and meticulous detail. Every face seems to have a complete history as Jaguar Paw is marched through the Mayan city. A well-to-do Mayan woman does nothing more than look at the prisoners from her doorway but the story her face tells is voluminous.

The last part of the movie is a rousing chase akin to The Naked Prey, and again, no more bloody and violent then the film it resembles.

Let's be plain here. What really has the critics'--especially those of the Eastern Elite variety--panties in a twist is the director, Mel Gibson. He said some things that upset them, plus (and most unforgivably) he's an outspoken and conservative Christian, so they're going to practice any sort of mendacity that will keep people from buying tickets to his film.

Don't buy the lies or you'll miss an amazing movie.


I'll keep this review short. I'm dense as to what "message" Apocalypto may have been trying to send. I'm not convinced it's a message movie at all. The film's value lies in its limitless ability to pump adrenaline. The movie belongs in the action section when it goes to video. And in that genre, hardly another movie will be able to hold a candle to it.

Apocalypto delivers a rush that does not let up. Once the real action starts, brilliant images unlike any showcased in cinema flash across the screen with dizzying speed. Repeatedly and without letting up, the movie features scene after scene that hits the perfect note, which is always a high-pitched one filled with tension. Apocalypto is the perfect action film, punctuating its frenzy of activity with beautiful and surprising images.


One of the roughest, toughest art films I've ever seen. Remarkable, sensational. Non a mean task to put aside all the gossip surrounding the man behind this miracle and look at "Apocalypto" for what it is : a startling piece of art done by one of the most startling artists of our time. But I was able to do exactly that and sit there open mouthed, totally transported to the world Mel Gibson had in store for me. I don't want to get into any spoilers but let me tell you there are, at least, 4 moments - not merely technical but emotional - that are a first for the movies. There is violence in the film yes, but not nearly as much as in "Casino Royale" and definitely more justified. I'll take my wife next time, she stayed home, brainwashed by the avalanche of misinformation claiming it was one of the most violent films ever made. I know my wife well enough to know she will love "Apocalypto"


Apocalypto is probably one of the ten best movies of the year, a compelling action movie with not only adrenaline, but also brains and heart. Its portrayal of the Mayan culture -- including its strange dress, hair styles, costumes, tattoos, body piercing, and decorative scars, as well as its industry, class system, cities, warfare, weapons, myth, and religion -- provide a bizarre and fascinating anthropological backdrop for what is, at its heart, a solid, thrilling, fast paced old fashioned struggle between good guys and bad guys. The movie does have a lot of violence. But the violence is woven into a story with characters we care about. It is a realistic part of the culture being described. And it is not shown in a hyper gruesome manner, as is much of movie violence today. Thus, I found it much less offensive than many reviews had led me to believe I would. Unlike in some movies, I found the subtitles in Apocalypto so easy to read that most of time I forgot I was reading them. If anything the strange language only adds to the tone of exotic strangeness that pervades this unusually good and thrilling movie.


Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but he knows how to make an authentically real statement about the human condition. The movie is about civilization and how smaller is better. There are some rain-forest dwelling American natives, somewhere in America where there are jaguars and monkeys. Then there are some "civilized" natives, with a huge society of nobles, serfs, slaves and sacrificial victims who get their hearts torn out and heads chopped off on top of a pyramid, for the appeasement of their gods and for the sake of controlling and entertaining the "citizens." Our noble small villagers of the forest are ultimately hunted down and enslaved by the more organized, and totally vicious, pyramid builders. This is a story of how one of these villagers deals with the horrific trials that his captors heap upon him. The whole movie is in an ancient native language, subtitled in English, and it lends an air of excruciating authenticity to the happenings. One gets the feeling of being a time traveler, as this 500-year-old world seems so real, with every detail of weaponry, cookware, clothing, jewelry, labor practices, buildings, village characters, and sacrificial ceremonies so obviously researched that it made me feel uncomfortably like I was involved in it all. We are constantly getting the crowd's point of view of all the empire's activities and abuse of its captives and underlings. There is a lot to look at here, from God's beautiful nature to man's nightmarish creations, so it deserves to be seen on a big screen.


Mel Gibson obviously has some major demons but maybe that is what makes him such a masterful storyteller.Apocalypto is his latest and IMO his greatest film, this film plays out like the bastard freak brother of the Fugitive, it is wildly entertaining and violently sick, it also is an allegory of todays society.The images in this film are breathtaking, shot with the genesis digital cameras this is the best looking digital film out to date, the cinematography is superb, the costumes,make up and art direction are top notch.The acting is a real surprise since Gibson casted actors with no experience at all, yet they are convincing.What Mel Gibson has directed here is like an ultra violent yet very entertaining action/adventure chase film, the best one in years, this is a must see, and for people worrying about subtitles, do not worry, they are simple and brisk.

I give this film my highest mark, its one of the best films of 2006.