**SPOILERS** Even though the advertising for the movie "Spectres" makes it look like a ghost story it's a lot deeper and philosophical then you would have first expected it to be. The film is about two persons who become connected through death and how it in the end fulfills both of their wants and dreams that they couldn't have while they were still alive. Kelly Webber, Lauren Birkell, is very depressed over the loss of her dad at an early age and the loss of her mom Laura, Marina Sirtis, who never has time for her due to her job as a CPA at a large accountant firm in the city.

As we see Kelly watering her front lawn at the beginning of the movie Linda, Renee Hansen, pull up with her van asking Kelly for directions to the local mall. Linda, together with her young son C.J ,Alexander Agate, seems to be a bit concerned with Kelly as if she could read her mind. Later that evening Linda get's killed in a car accident, her son C.J survived, and Kelly attempts to kill herself only to be brought back to life at the hospital.

After recovering from her suicide attempt Mrs. Webber takes her teenage daughter Kelly to their summer home in the country to spend more time with her but just then things start to happen to both of them that are beyond the world of the living. At first thinking that Kelly is suffering from the aftermath of her suicide attempt Laura sends her to a psychiatrist Dr. Halsey, Dean Haglund. Dr. Halsey after examining her and seeing for himself what's happening to Kelly, and her mom back home, feels that whatever Kelly is suffering from is out of the realm of science and reality and goes to his friend Will Franklin, Tucker Smallwood, a psychic for help. It turns out that something strange and paranormal happened when both Kelly and Linda died,Kelly was resuscitated back to life,and it's that incident in death that somehow connected the two in life.

"Spectres" is a lot like the famous James Stewart film "It's a Wonderful Life" in that it shows how precious one's life really is and, no matter how bad things are, throwing it away would not make things any better but make them much worse when one realizes what a mistake he, or she, made by doing that. You start to see, like Kelly does, what a waste it is when you give up the most precious gift that God gave you. At the same time you see through Linda, how after losing her life, how she took advantage of Kelly's mistake to make life better for her orphaned young son, C.J. Linda did this by getting Kelly to, sub-consciously, track down C.J and find his dad Sam Philips, Chris Hardwick; so that C.J can have someone to look after and care for him as he grows up into adulthood.

The ending of the movie "Spectres" turns out to be a happy one for both Kelly and the deceased Linda with Linda's son C.J reunited with the father that he never knew. Kelly and her mom end up finally being together and spending more time with each other like they should have before the loneliness and void of being alone and unloved drove Kelly to kill herself at the beginning of the movie.


Just came from the North American premiere, that happened at Cinequest in San Jose.

Marina Sirtis, as well as Tucker Smallwood, Linda Park, the director (Phil Leirness) and script writer (Bud Robertson) were there, and we had a nice Q&A session with them at the end.

The movie was very good - I'd say excellent if it weren't for one thing:

The actors and director basically took the script in a completely different direction than the writer wanted initially. Which is a good thing, for the most part. However the end result is that the film cannot really define itself as a thriller/ghost story (like it originally was supposed to be) nor a like anything, really. It has ingredients of thriller, but it is mostly about a dysfunctional mother-daughter relationship with some details of paranormal but without taking itself too seriously.

What makes it a very good movie is basically two things: wonderful performances by an ensemble cast that was hand picked (and will definitely attract lots of sci-fi fans, with well-known Trek alumni plus Alexis Cruz from Stargate/Stargate SG-1) and the fact that the underlying plot of the mother daughter relationship IS very interesting and very well played out.

The ghost story basically comes out as a plot device. This no Six Sense, no X-Files. :-) The actors and the director didn't take the ghost story seriously and that shows. :-) But that's OK - honestly, it makes the movie more interesting and fun to see.

Anyway, they said they've found an international distributor and a national one may be in the works - as soon as they figure out how to categorize this movie. If they do find a way - go see it. Even if you're not a fan of any of the actors, their work really deserves your 90 minutes (and $9).


Soul Survivor (listed as Spectres on IMDb) is a little different than a lot of movies I see on Lifetime Movie Network. This is a tale of a teenage girl, Kelly (Lauren Birkell), who is lonely and depressed, as her father has passed away and her mother, Laura Lee (Marina Sirtis), is too self-involved. After Kelly attempts suicide, Laura Lee takes her to live in a home in the country for the summer. Before even settling in, Kelly meets a mysterious boy and she begins to experience unusual happenings in the house.

I liked this movie but I had to pay close attention, as it seemed a little choppy in places and it had a lot going on. Lauren Birkell does a nice job, as does Alexis Cruz. Marina Sirtis' character is annoying but I suppose she is supposed to be that way for the story. She does give a realistic portrayal, though.


I can say without doubt that this it my favourite film Marina Sirtis has been in (other than the Star Trek films of course)! I loved it. Excellent film-making too! A supernatural drama is how I would define this. Laura Lee and her daughter, Kelly (Lauren Birkell), go on a summer vacation to get to know each other again, after Kelly's attempted suicide. This would be a basic premise for a family drama but a supernatural twist is added to the plot. In the moment Kelly died before being revived, her spirit became lost and mixed up with Renee's (Linda Park's character) and Kelly takes on some of Renee's traits and attracts further spiritual attention (in other words ghosts). Marina displays some of her greatest acting skills to date, in my opinion. When the psychic Will (Tucker Smallwood) and psychiatrist Dr. Halsey (Dean Haglund) realise Kelly be brought to the brink of death and be revived to regain her spirit/soul, Laura Lee gets understandably extremely emotional and has to be held by Will. Marina does a fantastic job here; devastation and helplessness are obviously not enjoyable emotions to act (see quotes below for Marina talking about this scene). At certain points in the film Laura Lee is an awful mother, not at all understanding what her daughter is going through. But this must be because she cannot cope with her daughter's attempted suicide! And she is a bit of a b*tch towards Dr. Halsey, when she says, "I'm not the one on your couch, I'm paying you to make us a happy family." But it appears that the supernatural experiences that mother and daughter go through, aid them in bonding with each other by the film's conclusion. The ending is slightly cheesy, with Laura Lee and Kelly a happy family and going off to explore the creek, but I don't have a problem with that. Kelly, Dr. Halsey, Will and all the ghosts are all roles that are cast without flaws. It's always a pleasure to see Marina in anything, Spectres is fabulous though, a perfect project for Marina, and she gets nothing but praise from me for her performance.

DVD Review: The actual film is faultless in quality, but the special features seem to be jumpy, the images jerk around and have lines on sometimes. But it's just a huge bonus to have special features, unlike Marina's other recent films on DVD, Terminal Error and Paradise Lost, which have none. It's lovely when the film company put effort in to it. This has deleted scenes, making of the film, trailers and a clip of filming where they thought the house they filmed in was haunted and something moves behind Marina. But it seems to be just a flash of light, even though the makers insist there was nothing that could produce that light! Oooh!


An uncovered Gem! This is a great movie! The trailer sucked, and gave me the impression that it's a low-budget piece of crap with a great...no, AWESOME cast! Curious I got it...I was VERY surprised. Linda Park, (Hoshi from Enterprise) is in it, Marina Sirtis (Troi of Star Trek: TNG), Dean Haglund (Langly, of the Lone Gunmen from The X-files), the sexy Alexis Cruz from Stargate (the film & SG-1), and Tucker Smallwood who has been in so many movies and every major sci-fi TV show in the past decade! The movie had an intelligent story, and though it's called Spectres, it was more about a mother struggling to make life with her teen daughter as close to normal as possible after a suicide attempt. The supernatural aspect is a fresh view (which is rare) on the subject of hauntings. The best thing of all (and worth getting the DVD on its own) was the surprise goose-flesh-raising filming of an actual ghost during a take and can be seen in special features. This is indeed a GEM that needs to be uncovered.


With the name and the description, it's easy to mistake this as being another edge-of-your-seat, thrill-ride horror movie. It's anything but. Apart from having a supernatural aspect to it, it's pretty much an after-school special sort of film. Its PG-13 rating isn't even needed. The suicide element is so brief and tame, that this could still easily be rated G (remember, G doesn't have to mean kids, it just means General Audiences). The interesting thing is that, when the credits finally rolled, I was satisfied with what I'd seen. Imagine that, a movie that doesn't go for the kill and just wants to entertain you with a decent story for an hour or two. The script is...OK, the dialogue is... acceptable, the acting is good, for the most part (this movie is rife with underrated actors that are much more talented than they've ever been given credit for). What I find interesting is that everyone comes across as real people. Not "good actors," just your regular, flawed bozos found on every street corner. When Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise are on a screen, you get drawn-in, but it's always "them." Marina Sirtis, on the other hand, makes you believe you're watching a typical house-mom type, not an actress, who's both kind and overbearing under different circumstances --just as a real person might be. There's a scene towards the end that'll have you wanting to give her a medal for realistically portraying someone in emotional agony, and not simply "oh, the script says I'm supposed to scream here." So, overall it's not a blockbuster, and it's not something you'll want to rush out and tell your friends about. Heck, some of the metaphysical/religious concepts used are so... well, let's just say I don't subscribe to them and politely leave it there, suffice to say they're a bit corny and detracting, in an amalgamated "I've read a lot of spiritual books, but don't really know a thing about it" sort of way. But, I gave this one an "8" score for one very good reason: It accomplished what it set out to do, and it did leave me happy that I'd watched it. With Hollywood pumping out multi-million dollar blockbusters with tons of FX and no story on a regular basis, how often can we really say that about a film these days?


When I saw Marina Sirtis in the opening scenes I thought that she looked familiar, but couldn't pinpoint where I saw her. But then I checked her bio and realized she was in one of those really awful "Star Trek" spin-offs. Naturally, she gets cast in a cheesy horror/drama/comedy(?). The movie was so forgettable that I kept focusing on Marina's lips, simply because they look exactly like Meg Ryan's, post-lip-enlargement. And Lauren Birkell looks a lot like Thora Birch.

Anyway...

The movie promises at the very outset that it will do its best to rip off "The Sixth Sense" and it doesn't disappoint in that regard. However, while TSS remains somber throughout, something strange happens in this low-budget little movie: half-way through the film, the characters get quite smart-ass-like, things get decidedly tongue-in-cheek, so for a moment there I thought this might become a sitcom. However, dormant comedic passions of the writer and actors settle down, and the movie ends dramatically, without comedy.

The problem with this movie is that after the quick, effective introduction, things move at a slow pace. Plus, there are several scenes that do very little for the plot or characters but just serve as fillers. There are also lines in the dialogue that sound awkward. The best example would be the black psychic saying "How dare you?!" to the shrink; I thought that was worthy of a MST3K stinger! More problems come in the form of bad acting, and I'm referring to the Asian kid and his father. And guess whom they cast in this "serious" movie to play the long-lost Daddy? That IDIOT from that 90s MTV dating show with Jenny McCarthy! What were they thinking? Btw, that "hot-shot" is the son of a bowling "legend". I know, I know: yet more nepotism in movies. And yes, I KNOW: "bowling" and "legend" can't possible go together, it's an oxymoron.

For a movie that is about ghosts, lost souls, and haunted houses where things go "bump", there sure is a severe lack of atmosphere. When a cup of coffee is spilled on the ground it's just boring. The movie just looks and feels flat. As flat as Keira Knightley's pitiful pair...


There is really not much to be said about this incredibly awful TV show. The premise was dumb, the background music was annoying, Monica played more like a mean big sister than a host, the men in competition were obviously looking for two minutes of fame (or were really hard-lucked with meeting women), and the clueless woman at the center.....enough said. The one positive is that it survived just a few weeks. What is really sad is that the powers that be at FOX have managed to come up with shows (in my honest opinion) that are even worse than this mess since then. One episode of "The Moment of Truth" has pretty much left me with the sudden urge to projectile vomit all over my TV screen. To only be able to go back 20 to 30 years and be able to watch some of the shows we referred to as garbage back then....they seem pretty appealing right about now.

If by chance "Mr. Personality" is released on DVD, pass it up and spend the money on bathroom deodorant.


While I don't have MUCH to say about this hilariously, painful monstrosity I do have one question...who the hell thinks of sh*t like an 'albino'-black slave? And for that matter, why is being a pasty-skinned Anglo-Saxon male considered close enough? If indeed the story calls for an albino I'd expect any respectable casting agent to go out and find such a person. True the population of albino-Africans is probably not soaring through the roof, but any albino would do (with exception of those of Asian kin); or perhaps a better make-up artist was all that was needed. Whatever the case, when I have trouble conceptualizing the viability towards one of MAIN characters, I find the rest of the film to be contrived and lackluster. BUT, with the right amount of THC in your system (or whatever your poison may be) the movie quickly becomes a wonderful, laughable joke. I'm sure this was not intended, but at least they accomplished something with a flick that otherwise would be better used as a book-end.


...and I saw both feardotcom and without a paddle in theaters.

and i've watched the films of ed wood. and sat through many a roger corman classic. and generally rented every bad movie in the bowels of the video store.

this is the single most painfully horrible movie i've ever seen. the only other thing i've watched in recent memory that was even close to this bad was six string samurai (I was so disappointed in that one).

But, on the upside, you can use it as a torture device to annoy your friends. There's nothing like subjecting them to bad acting, a white guy masquerading as an "albino" black man, and just generally terrible movie-making.

I first saw this film when I was 17. I'm now 23, and have yet to find anything to top it. The one and only reason I'm giving this two stars is because I like to torture people with it from time to time. Try it back to back with the Star Wars Holiday Special to rid your house of unwanted guests.


After I saw "You Got Served," I felt like I had just witnessed the biggest train wreck that was ever committed in the art of film-making. But little did I know that there was a much worse movie lurking at the depths of the Walgreen's bargain bin. "Charcoal Black" was and is that movie.

Standing at an excruciating 91 minutes, "Charcoal Black" might test anyone's patience, even if you love bad movies (like me). Even though Chris Robinson's story (if it could even be called that) might have some entertaining parts, the movie ends up making you want to get up and leave your nice Lay-z-boy recliner. And I can't forget to mention the bitter taste the movie leaves in your mouth afterward.

The wonderfully written story (HA!) by Chris Robinson starts off with two slave brothers, one black (Levi, played by Anthony Scott) and, well, one white (Sunshine). But the movie insists that the white one is actually an albino negro, even though Sunshine, who is played by the amazing Chris Robinson, is so obviously a white man. Anyway, the two slave "brothers" find a treasure map with no directions or writing on it decide to embark on a quest to find the treasure. The two slaves easily escape the clutches of the evil taskmaster Striker (Ted Cassidy) in a riveting scene that keeps the audience (if there is one) on the edge of their seats.

The rest of the sorry excuse for a story consists of the slaves meeting various people on their journey, such as racist white trash(redundant, I know) or even randomly placed Native Americans in Florida swamps. The story also follows Striker as he rounds up a gang to find and capture the slaves.

The slaves end up at a shack on the swamp that belongs to a woman (Phyllis Robinson) and immediately the sparks between the woman and Sunshine start to fly! Eventually the woman's house, which has nothing flammable in it, explodes by a candle (or maybe it's those sparks!), and the three must abandon the house. The chemistry between the two Robinsons is unbearable, especially since Phyllis always seems to have such a pained expression on her face.

The slaves ditch the woman and head to the treasure. Striker meets up with them with his gang of hit men hicks and they kill Sunshine. Striker's gang gets killed, but Striker remains alive and he befriends Levi randomly. Then the credits roll.

We never find out what's in the treasure - well, like anyone cares anyway. I bet Chris Robinson just gave up on the script because that's how the movie looks. Chris probably gave up on directing and everything else. In one scene where the slaves are walking, with music in the background, the editor decided to cut in the middle of the scene. So the music stops and the slaves suddenly are face to face with some Native American. Then, they decide to kill the Native American, who has no weapons (oh, but he has a threatening loincloth on).

This movie is just so stupid, you feel like your IQ has dropped 90 points. This movie is so bad, your feel like you have to take a shower or five after watching it. The story is ridiculous, the acting is horrid, the characters are flat, the writing bites, and so on and so forth.

In short, "Charcoal Black" offers a one of a kind experience: after watching it, you'll feel like you have just committed a crime.


Bollywood crowds were not pleased with this film. For good reason of course. This movie breaks out of the regular tradition of song, dance and predictable drama and creates a movie rarely seen in the Bollywood industry. The direction was amazing. The movie was inspired by many action movies from the past but what makes it different is its setting and culture. Very few Hindi movies have been made with such openness and innovation. If you want a new twist on a classic story watch Karam. It will blends elements of Bollywood and American action. Its an entertaining watch if nothing else. Some scenes are a little graphic but they are not gratuitous. Also, the casting was excellent.


Karam is a very, very interesting story told in a stylish format. It was so emotionally & psychologically thrilling, the whole movie is charged with pulse pounding suspense and made so dark & sinister that gives you the tensive mood for the film. Inspired from Collateral & Kill Bill. The best Bollywood movie in 2005. Sanjay F. Gupta made a terrific film for his first attempt he only made one film so far but still he is one of my favourite directors. He was a cinematographer of Qayamat, Mujhse Shaadi Karogi and Zinda. The story is mentioned in the plot summery and also by other comment users.

Karam has probably the best cinematography in any Bollywood movie, which suits the mood e.g. the flashback scene of John's first kill, was in animation, black and white for John's dream and sepia for the song Tera Hi Karam when he was in huge depression. The animated scene was in black and white the only colour was blood. The main menu of the DVD is wavy, green.

The best scenes in the film has to be the:

1. Animated scene.

2. When John was trying to save his wife he was wearing dark sunglasses and black gloves.

3. Where he was in the club during the song Ishq Nachaya Kare dressed like Eric Draven in The Crow and he killed the first man in his hit list.

Songs are excellent without a doubt every song is good the best ones probably are Tinka Tinka and Ishq Nachaya Kare.

I also noticed a goof when John received his wife's finger it was a full finger but when he was talking to her on the phone after the song Ishq Nachaya Kare her finger was half cut.


What made me feel good after watching this movie was ... a good story and brilliant acting.. specially Priyanka Chopra has done a very good job... she is the lady who knows what acting is.... and no doubt if she will be the next bollywood queen... John Abraham has also done a very good job playing the character of a hit-man... all together a good movie to watch ... worth the time... And I think after a long time had bollywood came up with such a brilliant movie I don't know why such movies are not liked by the Indian audience... they go in for crap... I would say that Karam has got a good story, good acting and screenplay, but still this movie did not do much business ... sad to hear that... Indian audience ... wake up plzzzzz....


I say the director was quite ambitious when he undertook the making of this film but i feel it paid off. The Indian audience are usually used to the 'masala ' type of movies which incorporates a little bit of everything and is not a bad thing at all (heck i was attracted to Bollywood movies for the very same masala!) so don't get me wrong. However this film offers something different, variety; which is sticking to one genre. What stood out for me the most; besides the brilliant acting of Priyanka , John and Shiny (all three are very talented and quite under rated performers) was the ambiance of the whole film. It was a dark tale of guilt and need for salvation...a noir and i think the director got it the 'T', specially in the song 'Tera Hi Karam'; which is full of shadows and 'blackness' which reflects the inner turmoil of the character 'John' and seems to follow him everywhere!I mean his closed are black and white (quite abstract and not as simple as it seems). The only elements of colour and light in his life are those in which his wife 'Shalini is a part of (that is, in the song and... actually in the film itself! ). However the colour and light seems to be threatened by shadows and darkness such as when ACP Singh searches John's house, you can hardly see any light and colour as it is half engulfed in darkness . The portrait of Shalini is half in shadow (perhaps a metaphor for the situation she is in or the shadow representing John himself and the effect he has on the life of his loved ones). I thought it had justified ending though I can understand why some people might get frustrated with it . Overall , i think people should give it a go and watch it with open minds and a clean slate and try not to read and judge using rigidly the conventions of traditional Indian cinema that most people are used to and it might surprise you and you'll find yourself enjoying it. Besides I am a big Shiny Ahuja fan so i might be a tad bit biased into trying to get you guys to watch it. It might just be your cup of tea xx


All i can say that i cannot find a single mistake in the movie, The Movie Direction, Shot Composition, Cinematography, Music, Acting all were Absolutely Perfect

John Abraham's Acting was really Flawless, as for Priyanka's Role, As far as i can say A Very Hard Hitting Challenging role it was indeed it was by far her Best Performance,

Direction was like WOW!!! Sanjay Gupta, Truly did his best!! Cinematography: Oh My God i was AWED by that The Composition Was PERFECT!! Music: The Music was Great, Vishal Shekhar Showed Their Techniques as Master Musicians, The Song Tinka Tinka, Has a Soft Groovy Effect to it, The Song Tera hi Karam, Was Brilliant!!!

When i watched the film MY EYES were Hooked From Start to End

You Will Find it Very Brilliantly Directed Even though I'm writing about this 2 years later but it is Definitely Worth Buying

Go and Grab a Copy of the DVD out on EROS


This movie is definitely one of the best Indian breakthrough films of 2005. The protagonist of the film, John Abraham, is actually a negative character. Playing the role of a hit-man, he has a long history of sins. He finally realizes the enormity of his wrongdoings after accidentally killing a small girl during a mission. Although his spiritual awakening does help him to some extent, his numerous murders do not let him live in peace. In a constant struggle to start life afresh, it is extremely interesting to see how his past deeds catch up to him. John gives a good performance. Priyanka is also great in her small role. The climactic monologue and visuals are beautiful. Cinematography is excellent. "Tinka Tinka" is a very beautiful song. "Tera Hi Karam" is a great track with an awesome, shocking, and eye-opening video displaying the theme of the movie. The theme is portrayed magnificently as the movie does a good job in showing how all the characters' karma dictates the degree of suffering they must endure in their life and/or death.


I felt really sorry for John Abraham in this film. He proved to us all that try as you may, but even being that sexy can't save you when you've gone down the wrong path. Karam is the story of a man (played by Abraham) who kills others for a living and is told in second-person retrospect by his wife (played by Priyanka Chopra) and painfully so. From the minute this film begins, you know that Abraham's character is doomed. When you find out that he's attached to Priyanka Chopra in the film, you just have to know by then that they are star-crossed lovers. Abraham tries to quit the hit-man business after a hit gone awry but finds out the hard way that quitting the underworld is not as easy as it may seem. His pregnant wife is kidnapped, tortured and eventually held captive while the mob demand one last hit from Abraham which involves him taking out a host of people. This hit is the majority of the film and you can only imagine what becomes of him when the job is done. Karam is a very thought provoking and sad film that was very well executed on the part of all the actors. I hated the drug use scenes though because they were a bit too graphic. Abraham looks even more sexy than he usually does in this film and when he is beside Chopra, the screen just begins to melt from their combined hotness. Hahaha! :-D The songs are as excellent as they are haunting. A truly wonderfully tale of love, ambition and loss.


I thought this might be a fairly disposable action movie, but it's not, it's a very dramatic action movie with a wonderfully sharp script done full justice by an excellent cast. It is very stylized in places but with finesse, nothing looks excessive or gratuitous but rather serves the story.

John Abraham fits right into the role of the protagonist. He really accentuates the vulnerability of the character which adds a lot to his plight. Priyanka Chopra also does a great job with the character. One of her best performances maybe. Shiny Ahuja also delivers, adding another perspective to the story.

The film is perfectly paced, never letting up or getting distracted with side-stories. The songs are well implemented and serve the themes effortlessly. The first song "Tinka Tinka" is wonderfully subdued yet stirring and will stick with the viewer for long after viewing the movie.


This movie is basically a copy of The Mexican. Total waste of time don't bother watching it

Again this movie is just another rip off of some Hollywood movie so there is no point on explaining it. If you want to watch it go ahead it is about a guy who is a sniper for the mob who wants to quit but has to do one last job. To make sure he finishes it the mob kidnap his fiancé so he decides to do it. (The reason he wants to stop is because he accidentally slaughtered a family)

And the rest is self explanatory. Just another lame copy of a Hollywood movie but who am i to stop u

I give this movie a 4/10 at least they tried to copy The Mexican


Still i am giving the film 4 out of 10 just because of the music and some what mediocre-ly cinematography! This might be a copy of The Mexican which i have seen and loved, but some how the director has managed to make the film look very illogical! Pointless melodramatic moments! Stupid wife just keeps talking about the flooring in their new house!!

Movie is crap because of the makers! If this is an first time attempt which i think it is then it is a very good attempt. The narrative is quite unique for Indian film industry standards! This itself demands respect for the makers!

John acted well!!! So did Priyanka!!!!

But the music and the songs are original and just plain heavenly!!!!


Okay, first off, this film is not everybody's cup of tea. But if it is yours, and you can handle the graphic violence and frightening look at the human psyche at its most damaged, then you'll be amazed.

It was disturbing as hell. It made me sick to my stomach (and I wasn't going into this blind--I'd been warned it was graphic). These people act so normal about what they're doing and that just threw me. This film has a very unique and little-before-seen take on serial killers and this fresh new approach is what makes it so frighteningly powerful.

The lady wants to put pictures up in the basement where they torture people. Wow, she's a regular freak, though, isn't she? Little details like that throughout the film remind the audience that something is so very wrong in these two character's heads. (And actually, I nearly typed 'people' instead of 'characters' because they are way too real. The documentary style gives it that extra-real feel as well.) I was grimacing through the whole thing.

The husband and wife bicker, like a real couple. He throws out ideas on how to approach their murders and she's eager to see and learn. Between their murdering sprees they have "loving" moments with their two children. "You need to clean up that mess"... These characters probably seem normal outside the house but they're so subtly "off." They're the type of people who would, if you were to pass them in the grocery store or on the street without knowing who they are, give a gut feeling that says "STAY AWAY--don't know why just STAY AWAY." And the grotesque sound effects and the wife's Christmas present.... You'll need to see it to believe. Normal words fail me here.

Now--on to the aesthetic parts of the film (and yes, believe it or not, there ARE some): The lighting and color is gorgeous (is that the right word for a film like this?). The entire film has a desaturated, slightly off-color look which helps bring you into this off-kilter world of the home-video-making serial killer. It's easy on the eyes but it's the only thing that is.

The entire movie was shot home-video style, which lends for a slight camera shake throughout. It works well, making everything feel much more real, but also causes the film at times to move a bit slowly.

The music in the background at the beginning is reminiscent of...really old cartoons. Like the kind where one of the characters is mischievous by nature. It evokes a really interesting feeling from the get-go, sort of like everything is off-kilter. And it's very subtle. The music never proclaims the characters are doing something dramatic or evil.

The actors are phenomenal. They totally made me believe it. And the way the film opens--over black, with narration...it sets the mood for the dark that will follow.

In closing, this film felt way too real and that made it very uncomfortable (well...that word's too tame in this case...). But wow. Just wow. Disturbing on a level I can't even contemplate because these characters were just. so. WRONG. And this is an amazingly scary movie, not because of the blood and gore, but because of the way this film captured the darkest and frankly most disgusting parts of humanity. It's sickening because it's real--because there are people like that. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've passed one or two in the supermarket--we probably all have.

So, this film is AMAZING in its own right--again, if it's your cup of tea. If not, avoid it like the plague; but if you're ready for a dip into the dark and everything we fear but never talk about, then watch this film. You won't be disappointed.


With a few exceptions, most horror films are scary but there's a certain unreality to them. You watch them and jump when you're meant to jump and you scream when you're meant to scream, but at the same time you're thinking that this could never happen to you.

Head Case is different. The way it's filmed as to be edited from home movies certainly helps to make it seem realistic, but even more so it's the way the characters act and interact. So many of the exchanges between the husband and wife are just so ... ordinary. Their bickering tends to be rather boring, something you've heard a thousand times from listening to your dull neighbors. At times I began to tune them out. However, when they're planning or carrying out their horrific murders, they're just as casual about it! The way they can nonchalantly describe to each other the way a woman is chewing up ground glass or how it's so difficult to saw through a spine, as though they're doing nothing more than talking about the weather, is what makes this film so absolutely chilling.

This film being so realistic, it has to be one of the most horrifying I have ever seen. I will never again accept a car ride or a glass of ginger ale.


In this subtle, yet unsettling compilation of "home movies" created by Wayne & Andrea Montgomery, filmmaker Anthony Spadaccini affirms his instinctive aptitude for creating both a successful cinematic showpiece and an unnerving playground for his actors to perform.

The realism that this film contains is both distressing and comical; a compound genre that I feel is rather difficult to accomplish. Through the camera's scope, the viewer does not witness an organized, calculable story, rather an intelligently assembled collage of personal movies filmed by Andrea and Wayne to both document their quite casual domestic family life as well as their gruesome escapades that are performed in secrecy.

Wayne Montgomery (Paul McCloskey) portrays the ordinary American Family Man with a quite shocking hobby that he has excelled into an elusive art form that he takes very seriously. To withhold a family infrastructure, fulfill his talent of dismembering bodies, and filming the murders for later satisfaction, Wayne affirms himself to be quite the bachelor of demented serial killers! His accomplice and spouse, Andrea Montgomery (Barbara Lessin) is not any less motivated. (Her character, the candid matriarch, is comparable to a contemporary Lady Macbeth.)

At the beginning of the film, Wayne decides to end his long era of reticence. Now that his children are older, he can return to his former hobbies previously restrained by raising his two children. This time, Andrea doesn't want to feel left out, so they form a successful duet, picking up strangers, dismembering their bodies, and cleaning up afterward. However, while this film initially appears to be geared towards horror fans, it has the quite unique and mature characteristics of a dark comedy.

As Spadaccini's first horror film, he is proving himself to be quite an evolving polymath of film genres. As the category of serial killer films is not uncommon, I have to point out this film carries a quite deviant approach to realistic story telling. The hand-held filming quality allows for the audience to take the voyeur's point-of-view into a world that appears identically parallel to our own. The loose cinematography is quite remarkable.

This is a film that I would suggest for everyone to watch no matter what genre of film you prefer. Also, anyone interested in good film-making, I promise that you will not be let down. This film is remarkable.


So here we are watching home movies? No. No one makes movies like these. But here they are...and...its tough to turn away, isn't it? Thats the key behind 2007's Head Case from Anthony Spadaccini and team. And i say team because his use of ad-libbed dialog is phenomenal in this story of two mad parents bent on setting the record for homicides in the family tub. What ramps the creepiness up to 10 is their behaviour; neither over the top or demented, or mad-man speech is present. Its the very subtle interest and action these two psychos keep wrapped under their suburban-home cover. Their more interested in bickering over how to slice a stomach akin to a typical married couple deciding on where to order out for dinner. Another great use of the "home movie" type of filming, Anthony has shown that this is very familiar and comfortable territory, and eagerly exploits the cast and their pleasure at living out these characters.


Head Case is a dark and chilling film, but if you solely take it in the context of a gratuitous horror film, then you are clearly going to overlook the main impetus Spadaccini is striving for. Although the acts of murder and vile mutilation are a major and indeed gruesome part of the plot, there is a more wholesome and intriguing aspect to the film which often neutralises its more shocking elements.

The discourse between Wayne and Andrea is perhaps the strongest element of Head Case, and as much as it can be witty and incisive it can equally be cold and chilling. There are some wonderfully humorous exchanges between husband and wife and initially infers Andrea holds equal footing with her husband. But the more we observe their day-to-day activities we soon realise Andrea is nothing more than an interested spectator, and without the camera we could imagine her to be nothing more than a disinterested housewife. Spadaccini does capture this emotional dichotomy of the couple beautifully, such as when Wayne and Andrea are having a minor domestic argument in the bedroom, and Wayne considers the only way to soothe his wife's rising anger is to take her on a drive to find another hapless victim that will sooth his own.

But when deconstructing their behaviour it seems fairly obvious this is not a gruesome tale of two serial killers, but a tragic tale of a married couple seeking to invigorate their sterile marriage. Both characters display an overt sense of emotional detachment that comes forcefully through when dealing with their victims. While Wayne dissects one such victim and discovers her to be pregnant, Andrea cannot find any maternal sympathy other than briefly pass the camera over the bloody carcass of the foetus. Ironically, this is the brutal turning point of the film when Monica enters the room to make the horrific discovery, and Wayne enacts punishment in the only way he knows best. From this moment it is clear who holds the real power in the relationship, because despite Andrea's pathetic pleas of "That's enough," Wayne can only see one way of preventing his dark secret from seeping out. I am sure Spadaccini will take criticism for this shocking moment, but does enforce who is in real control of the film, regardless of the critical character of Andrea: "Look at the mess you've made!"

But these dichotomies often keep you interested in the film, much as the dichotomy of Crime & Punishment keeps you interested in the motivation of Raskalnikov, and whether he will seek redemption and salvation in a greater good. But if marriage and family have not saved Wayne, then it is doubtful his moments of familial good will outweigh his greater moments of sadistic evil. For a man who can lovingly take his son on a driving lesson but sadistically ignore the crying pleas of a soon-to-be butchered mother forcefully realises how far beyond redemption Wayne has gone, and the spiral of madness he is influential for leaves little possibility of a reconciliation by the close of the film. Indeed, when Wayne seeks to initiate Andrea into his sadistic world we know there is no hope for this couple, and the sooner this nightmare is destroyed the better it will be for all concerned. Naturally, Spadaccini has the last word on this matter.

For an independent film Spadaccini has worked hard with many genres and movie styles; considering the constraints he must have been working under. He has done very well to provide a unique experience for the discerning horror fan, and I can appreciate why this film will not be to everyone's taste. But based on the characterisation, the humour and the plot, I do think Head Case has the capacity to become a cult favourite for many others. Following on with other comments, we are seeing here the development of a very talented writer and director, who seems to be able to inject something fresh and compelling into a very tired and overdone genre.


I had the honor of viewing Head Case at the Newark Film Festival this past summer and it scared the hell out of me. The film is not your conventional horror movie, but that is what makes it so scary. The film details the seemingly mundane suburban existence of Wayne and Andrea Montgomery and their two children. The appear to be the typical middle class family, but what lurks beneath the surface is a barely masked evil. Wayne and Andrea kill for fun.

They are serial killers who target transients and hitch hikers. They film their daily lives and the killings the way that other families would a graduation or holiday. The most disturbing thing about Wayne and Andrea is that no one knows about their secret life. They go to church, work and raise their children for years without being detected.

I found that to be the scariest thing about the film, that these depraved people could indeed live next door to me or share a cube at work. They could be part of the PTA or serve on the church board.

As far as the production goes, I think that Anthony Spadaccini has grown leaps and bounds from his other films. The lighting, camera work and acting all support the home movie style that is the centerpiece of the movie. Think Blair Witch, without the witch.

The standout feature in my opinion is the gore effects. Head Case has a particular special effect that seemed to be very realistic and unsettling. The use of gory is minimal, but it is effective. It is what you don't see that will make you cringe.

The dialog in the film is very realistic and shows that people's lives are not always exciting. There are parts in this film that some would consider boring, but I find that it adds to the realism of the piece and really provides the home movie feel that I think the director was trying to convey.

As far as standout characters go, I was supremely annoyed and amused by Andrea Montgomery. Her nagging and the tone of her voice reminded me of the typical over the top mom and added an eeriness to each death that she was a part of. Each time she called out "Waaayyynnne", it made me want to duck and run.

Overall, I think that Head Case is another solid effort from the Fleet Street Films team and I hope to see these characters again.


I used to be a big fan of horror movies, but got tired of the usual slasher movies produced today. What made Head Case so appealing to me is that not only is it realistic, but the premise of it is entirely possible and I admit, while sitting in the theater enjoying this independent thriller, I ran through a mental list of my own neighbors. It's gory, exciting, humorous at times....all in all, it's the best horror movie I have seen in years. I applaud Anthony Spadaccini for coming up with an original idea and also applaud the cast who did such a wonderful job portraying these characters. The movie will not disappoint, but it will leave you wondering exactly where the main character ended up and exactly what (and I'm not sure I really want to know) happened to the daughter.


I have been following Anthony Spadaccini's work over the past few years and watched him grow as both a filmmaker and a storyteller. His previous work has covered such hard topics like hate crimes, depression, suicide, guilt, etc. I've also seen some of his funnier stuff like his two silent films and it's clear that this is a filmmaker who likes to work in many different genres and be one of a kind. So when I read on his Myspace page that he was making a horror film, I couldn't wait to go see it. I had an opportunity on Sat night at the Newark FF world premiere to check out his newest film Headcase. It's very different from his other movies. It is a collection of home videos shot by a married couple who have two kids, but also like to kill people on the side and film their crimes. I've never seen a horror movie quite like this before. It's longer than the typical one, it moves slower than your average one, but in this case that's a very good thing. It allows us the viewers to learn about who these people are and connect with them, which is really pretty sick considering how truly sick they are. There are many surprising plot twists, including a really disgusting and stunning one about midway through the movie that changes everything for the characters. I thought the acting was very very good (Paul Mccloskey and Barbra Lessin were very very realistic), the movie has plenty of blood and gore, lots of disturbing moments, and a surprising ending that is also atypical of a horror movie. I also liked how not everything was explained, it allowed us the viewers to draw our own conclusions (like whether or not the son Todd knew about what his parents were doing and what happened to him after the conclusion of the film, or what the meaning of the scene at the abandoned house really meant). I highly recommend Headcase to anyone who is tired of the horror genre and looking for something unique and different and really really disturbing.


I have had the great honor to experience many films in my lifetime. To my great fortune, I have lived in large cities that have theatres devoted to independent and small production films. So, to my pleasant surprise, I can across an independent film by a filmmaker in my own hometown. Admittedly, I didn't expect muchsmall town director, local interest, and a modest, grassroots release. Reading beyond the teaser, one realizes that this is more than a simple local filmthis is deeper than one may expect. This film spoke to a teleological focal point that may beyond grasp for so many of us, yet much like an accident on the highway, we can't resist watching.

"Head Case," by filmmaker Anthony Spadaccini, takes place in Claymont, DE; a quaint hamlet born out of the burgeoning steel industry of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, located just outside the Wilmington metropolitan limits. Situated in this once prosperous, suburban context, the film details the sojourn of Wayne and Andrea Montgomery from a couple in a stagnant, archetypal marriage to a malevolent duet feeding their rapacious thirst for unsuspecting victims. Wayne, the more experienced of the pair, imposed upon himself a hiatus from his vicious activities during the birth and childhood of the couple's two children. Now as their progeny reaches adolescence, Wayne and Andrea team up to recommence Wayne's interest. Taking a more scientific approach to homicide, these serial executioners test methods, techniques, poisons concentrations, and demographics all the while documenting their episodes on filmthe source for this filmmaker's canvas. However, this is more than just a gruesome documentary on the countless murders of the Montgomery's victims; it is a glimpse inside the darkness within all of humanity.

Guided by the filmmaker's careful hand, the observer is immersed in the intoxicating vantage point of a voyeur during these crimes. Indeed, the enthralled film audience moves with the gritty, oft times jittery camera movement, shifting their bodies so as to coax the camera to move in closer, get a better look, experience the milieu of another's fleeting life. Returning to the aforementioned vehicular accident scene, we slow down and move about in any way possible, in the hope to see more that what is being made visible for our consumption. In ways beyond my naïve understanding, the filmmaker invites his audience to slow down and look deeperhe wants us to feel more than simple voyeurs, we are commissioners along with Wayne and Andrea.

I encourage you to investigate beyond my feeble review and experience this movie for yourself. What are your reactions to each murder? How do you react to the heightened paranoia on the part of Wayne and Andrea? How do you think the story will really end? Check out Anthony Spadaccini's, "Head Case."


This is, without a doubt, a true masterpiece. The ending leaves you guessing and wanting for more, but not unsatisfied. The cinematography is beautifully done, it gives you a up-close and personal look at the characters. During the murder scenes you feel as though you are right there experiencing it with the Montgomerys. Paul McCloskey, and Barbara Lessin create a disgustingly casual feeling to the film that makes you want to hide under your blankets. Spadaccini truly captured the feeling of the Montgomery family and their sick passion. If you're squeamish I do not recommend this movie, as it is not for the faint of heart. Nonetheless this film will forever go down in my books as a classic. Job well done Mr. Spadaccini!


Where? Where does racism come from? How can one race feel superior to another? Are we born with it? No. Do we become it on our own? Maybe? Or is it perhaps that we are taught it? There is a small scene in Mississippi Burning that is just as powerful as any Gene Hackman speech or any violent montage to gospel music that is in this film. There is a rally at a park with the head of the KKK ( without his hood ) telling thousands of people that have gathered that he loves being white. He loves the fact that Mississippi is segregated. And in the crowd the camera pans across and shows three year old kids smiling and cheering as gleefully and loudly as their parent's are. It is haunting.

This film is bit like JFK in a way. It is not an absolute recreation of the events that took place in 1964, but it is a film that tells a true story and then adds a bit of fiction to make it more interesting for a mass audience. For example, the case was not cracked by Mr. Anderson fooling around with Pell's wife. But that is besides the point, the point being that this film is mesmerizing. Everything from its direction, cinematography, acting, writing and music, it is the best film of 1988. And having Rain Man take most of the major awards is really quite sad. Because Mississippi Burning is much more ambitious, important and well done. Rain Man is a very good film and I will even go as far as to say that Hoffman is the only one that deserved to win best actor just as much as Hackman did. But 1988 was a bad year for the rest of the Oscars. Anyway...

I have been edgy before. Boyz and the Hood did that to me, but this film makes me angry. It makes me want to jump back into 1964 and try to do something to stop this. The film is that strong at showing us how terrible and pointless racism is. And in order to make this film work, there has to be strong elements in all areas. But for me, what really made me feel the things that I did is the actors that played their roles.

Hackman is brilliant. He gives the performance of a lifetime and it is his anger that gives him his edge. He sees things differently than Mr. Ward does and that sometimes makes them bump heads with each other. But they ultimately have the same goal in mind. Just different ways of achieving that goal. Dafoe is great as well, but it is the supporting cast that really makes this film. From Dourif to R. Lee Ermey to Stephen Tobolwolski, these characters are richly portrayed by the actors that play them. There is however one actor in particular that I wanted to touch on and that is Michael Rooker. He plays Frank, the nastiest, meanest, no conscience, negro hating person that I think I have ever seen on film. I don't know where his anger comes from, but he is the kind of character that you can imagine had a violent father that drank too much and always told stories about how bad the black man was. When Rooker is on screen you listen. You pay attention to what he is saying and doing. And my hatred of him was one of my favourite parts of the film.

Mississippi Burning shows us how strange people are when it comes to racism. The characters in this film don't know why they hate the way they do, they just know that they do. And they are powerless to stop themselves. What happened to the three civil rights workers was a disgrace and a tragedy. But not just because three boys were murdered, but because no one knows why they were murdered,besides racism that is. Why did they have to die? Because they were a different colour of skin? Because they were Jewish? It really doesn't make any sense.

Mississippi Burning is one of the best films I have ever seen. It is important and it is entertaining. If you haven't seen it, do so just for the scene with Mr. Anderson and Deputy Pell at the barber shop. That is worth the price of the rental alone. But for a really important film that has something to say, this is one of the best.


Not saying this isn't an excellent film, it is just bluntly honest. I remember in English class in high school, we were learning about racism in the 60's, and how horrible it was. The worst part was that I am from a very racist town, unfortunately, and watching the beginning of the film terrified me because I felt like this world hadn't changed since I felt like I was living that film. Being one voice sometimes can either be helpful or get you into a lot of trouble.

I didn't want to see this film again because of the awful situations I saw or heard of. Now, I am out on my own, and I had the chance to see the movie once again, and felt that I could see it. It's a terrific and very powerful movie that can get anyone to cry unbearably. It's not just the actors, but Gene and William's characters, I wanted to be just like them, they were able to stand up even though the many times of being knocked down and caring so much just to try to in some way save that town.

I honestly feel that everyone should see this movie, it can change your life or make you look around and want to change things. I know this comment feels more like a lecture than a comment, but that's how much this movie got to me. I think we all can do something right in this world, it's just a matter or standing up. Even if this film isn't historically accurate, it's accurate enough to see how people treat other people. Hopefully, we will have a better future for generations to come.

9/10


Mississippi Burning is set in 1964 when three civil rights activists are murdered in a small town by the Ku Klux Klan Two of them were white and one of them black

Based on actual events in Philadelphia, the screenplay centers chiefly on the hostility relationship between the two FBI agents (Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe) sent down to the small Mississippi town to seek information about the vanishing of the three victims Immediately upon their arrival, they are greeted with hostility by the local law enforcement and the town in general

Dafoe's Ward in charge of the casecomes off as the embodiment of everything those men in the south dislike about the "Yankees" who are coming down there commanding them how to act

Anderson(Hackman), who was once a Mississippi officer himself, has a special feel for how to settle things with Southerners He uses his charm to win the confidence of the friendly wife of a Klansman deputy, whom he suspects holds the key to unravel the details of the case

The scenes between McDormand and Hackman are the best of the film They dramatize how quickly two lonely people can match...

The film succeeds by being gripping, emotional, and disturbing Alan parker graphically explores the hatred, motivations and mentality that were once flaming through the American society in the 60's.


1964 - The year America was at war with itself! Thats a pretty good tag-line. The promotion for this film seemed to pitch it as a thriller or a buddy movie. It is neither. This is a very mature investigation of a racist Mississippi town where the brutal murder of three civil rights activists took place in 1964. The film is inspired by real-life events.

Dafoe and Hackman play the two FBI agents sent to investigate. Their differing styles of pursuing the case and Dafoe's belated admiration for Hackman's "method's" is an interesting layer of flesh added to the structure of the film.

You will see some really nasty racist characters played by familiar faces like Brad Dourif, Lee Ermey and an especially violent Michael Rooker. All are excellent. Frances McDormand really steals the movie as the wife of racist Dourif.

This film is far more intelligent than some of the Stanley Kramer movies of the 60's which dealt with racism. It does not shy away from showing the seriousness (and sickness) of the racial mindset without being excessively preachy. It is in fact very watchable - largely due to a colorful and humorous Hackman whose character was himself a Mississippi small-town Sheriff at one time and understands the pitfalls of the Hoover boys going in all guns blazing.

Highly recommended!


I am from Mississippi. I lived through these times. Secretly, I did things to help in the voter-registration of Black folks; things you could get killed for, in those days. I know whereof I speak.

Therefore, let me say this: the events this film seeks to depict were bad enough without any inventions. But invent they did. Every local Black person in this movie is noble and a great singer. Their buildings, however, would lead you to believe they couldn't put tin on a roof straight. Why try to improve on facts? Every White person depicted in this film is an idiot. Out-houses in the sixties? KKK ruling the roost in an entire town?

Where are the rich, educated, "landed gentry" who were behind all this violence, encouraging the rednecks with nods and winks? Not in this movie. But I know they exist, because I know some of them...a few who are still living. Mostly it is their children I know, who still feel the same way about Blacks, and still do the same encouraging of White trash.

This film does not show how things really were. It seeks to make things look even worse, to people who don't know any better. It is a terrible story, with moments of good acting from many of the stars. It is the script and the direction that are awful.

What you see in this movie is not true. The truth is far worse.


This film is a good,though not flawless representative of the turbulent 1960's south.The character representation is good,though taken to a bit of an extreme in places.Gene Hackman gives another knockout performance here,as he does always as does Willem Dafoe.The cast is great,though Gailard Sartain was a surprising choice as Sheriff Stuckey, given his penchant for appearing in the worst of films.It is based on a true story,and as we all know,true stories are never presented to perfection.It is,however,presented as well as it can be.This is a very gripping,edge of your seat film,and very well done.


Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning is an unflinching look at racism in the South. This is a very difficult movie to watch, but it is well worth it, and a reminder of past events -- events that should never be forgotten. Gene Hackman gives a power-house of a performance, ripping up the screen in every scene. The film has a strong supporting cast as well, including the always dynamic Michael Rooker.

Many have complained about the death-wish like final act, but the final results are completely called for and necessary.


never underestimate the ability of hackman and dafoe... that is the only thing that i can say.... we have seen a lot of movie involving hackman, and this is one of the greatest performance from him...don't ever judge the acting by comparing to his age..he will always be one of the greatest actor for all time...Willem dafoe is just like the underdog...sometimes he has given a very powerful acting in a movie,and it was proved by two movies...this one @ Mississippi burning..and American psycho..

thus to these performances...hackman was nominated for Oscar...he really deserves it !! Frances Mac dormant is also very good...and so she won an Oscar too..it is only i am not satisfied that dafoe did not received any Oscar for this movie...sometimes an underdog like him should be given a chance...

nothing to say about this movie...the plot and story line are definitely superb!! the acting from everyone are great!! Michael rooker has always been good in his movie.. he played as a villain,and so.. he has proved that he is also great at playing as a villain...just like Michael ironside..

overall...i give this movie 10 out of 10 stars...

Bravo For Mississippi Burning !!!!!


In 1964, three civil rights activists go missing in Mississippi, and two FBI agents (Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe) with directly opposing methods pursue their murderers.

Mississippi Burning is a film much garlanded with awards, yet the charge about its uneasy focus on the fate of white activists is one that sticks. However, it is shot exquisitely, moves along with relentless power, and at least conveys an unequivocal message about racism, however unexceptional and self-congratulatory that may be. Hackman's turn as the pragmatic FBI man, prepared to spout racial hatred in order to catch his perpetrators, is mesmerising. Mississippi Burning was preceded in 1975 by a television docudrama titled Attack On Terror: The FBI vs. The Ku Klux Klan, depicting many of the same events.


Mississippi burning shows Gene Hackman at his best and at his side is Willem Dafoe who also plays very strong. Mississippi Burning is a dramatic movie made in 1988 directed by the talented Alan Parker (who has also directed Fame and Midnight Express). The lead roles are played by Gene Hackman, Willem Dafoe and Frances McDorman is at her best playing a supporting role. The movie is based on the true story of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964, so the movie is set in 1964 Mississippi.

The movie begins with the three civil rights workers who are brutally murdered; the viewer now already knows that the police are involved. Allan Ward and Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe) are sent to Mississippi to shed some light on the case. The two agents have very different personalities, Rupert Anderson used to be a sheriff in a small Mississippi town, just like the town where they are investigating missing civil right workers, he does not like to do everything by the book, in contrary to Allan Ward, he is a hard working FBI agent who likes to do everything by the book. Not long after they enter the town they see that it will not be easy, the townspeople are very hostile towards them and the KKK is involved, Mr. Ward soon ask for more FBI agents, even when Mr. Anderson thinks it is a bad idea. Soon there are an enormous amount of FBI agents in the small town, but that only makes the townspeople angrier. The KKK set a church for black people on fire to scare the black people into not talking to the FBI, when Ward and Anderson walk into a restaurant and try talking to a black person he says: ''I have nothing to say to you'' but still the townspeople beat him up for talking to people from the FBI. The FBI agents search trough the endless swamps and find the car of the civil rights workers, but they still find no bodies. Agent Anderson feels a connection with the wife of the deputy sheriff and feels that she knows something but she won't tell anything. When Ward lets Anderson do it his way they finally see what really happened.

The acting in Mississippi Burning is close to brilliant, Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe are both good actors, but together they are brilliant. Gene Hackman is born for the role of an old Mississippi sheriff who knows how it all works. Gene plays very dominant and the scene in the bar where he threatens the townspeople is one of the best moments in the movie, because you don't expect it from him but still it fits him very well. Frances McDorman plays the cop who does everything by the book excellent, even his appearance, the glasses and his pale skin. Especially the scene where Anderson beats someone up in the barber shop you see that this goes against his principles.

The music in Mississippi Burnin is phenomenal; there are a lot of gospel songs for example the song by Vesta Williams '' Try Jesus ''. The soundtrack is by Lannie Spann McBride, she made the very powerful song ''Walk On By Faith''. There is also a tune in the film when something bad is about to happen, when you hear it for the first time in the movie recognize the tune immediately, when you hear it you feel uncomfortable and are at the tip of your seat. Also Kitty Wells and Mahalia Jackson have made songs for the movie which are all beautiful.

This movie is a beautiful movie with a perfectly cast. The music is very well made and used. Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe are a perfect duo and should do more movies together, they fit the term '' good cop bad cop '' perfectly as Gene Hackman really does look as a hardened, bad cop and Dafoe as good cop. What they shouldn't have done was basing it on a real story, because clearly the director didn't want to be restrained, because a lot was different in the movie than what really happened, only a couple of things are historically correct, asides from that it's a must watch, I give this movie an 8 or 9 out of 10, so a small 9 out of ten.


Willem DaFoe is a by-the-book FBI investigator and is assisted by ex-Southern-sheriff Gene Hackman in the real-life inquiry into the deaths of three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964. The three kids disappeared. No one, black or white, is willing to cooperate with the "Hoover boys" that poke around in the small town's business. The blacks won't cooperate because they're afraid, the whites for more obvious reasons. And some less obvious ones. As the clued-in Hackman puts it, "They have to live here long after we're packed up and gone." Just about every character is a stereotype that's played out like a card in a hand of bridge. The head of the local Ku Klux Klan, who calls himself "a local businessman" is a balding nincompoop who hates not just blacks but Papists and Jews and probably Brobdignagians. He doesn't have a family. Not even a dog or a cat as far as we can tell. The other heavies, including the prototypical redneck Michael Rooker with his frozen sneer, don't have families either, except for Deputy Brad Dourif, who has a wife. But he only has a wife so that the movie can show us that not all Southern whites are murdering racists. Some are sweet and lovable and attractive, in the way that Carol Burnett is attractive, and, as just about sublimely played by Frances McDormand, are so haunted by distaste for these illegal caste-ridden shenanigans that she's able and willing to squeal to Gene Hackman's FBI agent about the murders. That indiscretion gets her clobbered.

The performances are all good and some are splendid. Hackman could not be better. Every move he makes, every line of dialog, carries weight. DaFoe's character is less colorfully delineated. McDormand is outstanding, and so are Rooker, Dourif, and the guy who plays the KKK head. (What a trio of villains.) The tobacco-chewing Sheriff is great in a small supporting role.

When the FBI is stretched to its official limits without results, Hackman is given license to use his own methods. Enter two unofficial FBI heavies. One is a balding red-head with bulging eyes who has since made a career out of playing serial murderers. The other is a huge black guy with an ominous and resonant baritone who threatens to castrate the Mayor unless he spills the beans, which the Mayor does, leading to almost all the desired convictions.

The direction is tasteful. When the decomposing corpses are uncovered, it's in long shot. When Dourif beats hell out of McDormand, we only get a few introductory blows before the cut, just so we know what's going to happen next.

Location shooting is evocative. It's a convincing small Southern town shimmering in the summer heat. Most "Southern" scene -- the silent guy on the Choctaw reservations who is carving up catfish. The characters, although they may as well carry sandwich boards advertising their function in the script, are pretty well drawn.

If there's a problem with the film it's that it is laid out like a dramatic movie in the usual form of rising climaxes. The payoffs towards the end simply don't fit in with the otherwise realistic depiction of events. I did not for a moment believe that undercover FBI agents were brought in to kidnap the Mayor and threaten to cut off his family jewels. That belongs to a movie script, or to some black hole of a CIA prison in Bulgaria, not to a narrative that purports to be based on an historic event.

The final impression the film leaves you with is how surprisingly easy it is for a deeply felt and thoroughly entrenched set of values to change so quickly. A generation has passed, only a generation, since the governor of Mississippi's neighboring state stood in the doorway of the university and proclaimed, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." The situation displayed here, in 1964, isn't perfect now. Nothing is perfect. But it's a hell of a lot better than it was then. This is actually a curiously mixed blessing. It leaves Southern white people with still another defeat that they must get over. And it leaves blacks with a great deal of anti-white resentment that has no place to go.


Mississippi Burning is one of those titles that despite knowing that it is apparently a modern-classic, I have put off seeing because of the average video cover. Finally, I took the plunge and boy was it rewarding. An inspired story, cracking dialogue, witty humor, Oscar winning cinematography and brilliant acting, especially by Hackman, makes Mississippi Burning a must see. Go rent it now.

The Good: The fight between Hackman and Dafoe (shown at 2003 Globes)

The Bad: The KKK

9/10


Well, I guess this is why movies are so personal to the viewer.

I've read some of the other comments here and have seen words like "condescending" and "mediocre."

I couldn't disagree more. "Mississippi Burning" is an intellectually challenging movie. It demands that you immerse yourself in the worst of southern culture, whether you like it or not.

Based on a true story, the film takes place in 1964 (my birth year, incidentally) in a small town ugly and virulent with racism. The good ol' boy sheriff and his stoolies ambush and in cold blood murder three civil rights workers. The world's a-changing, but the power-brokers in this place refuse to let that happen. They'll do anything to prevent blacks from taking their rightful place at the table - literally.

The FBI sends a couple of mismatched agents in to search for the three missing young men. One agent (Hackman) is 'old school', sly, and knows his enemies a little too well. The other (Dafoe) is a naive Kennedy fire-eater, ready to bring the full force of the FBI and military down upon this small town's head. Although he is easy to underestimate at first, he grows into his role, showing astonishing decisiveness and strength.

The relationship between the town's blacks and whites is complicated and fraught with rules - spoken and unspoken. It's a not-so-secret secret that the civil rights workers have been murdered. Hackman and Dafoe just have to get the bodies and the evidence, that's all. Fear and loathing prevent that from happening, until the wife of a deputy (the amazing Frances McDormand) throws herself on the fire and blows her slimy husband's alibi.

There is justice - of a sort - in the end. It's not enough. Real change crawls on it's belly in the south.

"Mississippi Burning" is a movie of operatic gestures. The script is spongey with regional color and snappy, powerful dialogue.

Hackman and McDormand are simply magical. They don't take or make a false step from the first frame to the last. As she would go on to prove in later films, McDormand doesn't just 'play' a character - she IS that character. And Hackman is never more affecting that in this film. One syllable from him is more subtle than an entire Shakespeare speech when delivered by a lesser actor. Hackman is a national treasure.

IMO, Dafoe is a well-meaning revelation until circumstances forces him to cave into Hackman's just-get-it-done ways. He comes to see that idealism must relent to pragmatism in extreme cases, although that knowledge repulses him. He wants nothing more than to get out of the south and go home to a world he believes is cleaner and more simple.

The conclusion of "Mississippi" is more bitter than sweet. The guilty are arrested and convicted, although their various punishments are a joke. (R. Lee Ermey is the only one in the bunch who meets a just fate.) McDormand is brutally beaten to within an inch of her life for betraying the status quo and doing the right thing. Although she and Hackman have fallen in love, she refuses to leave with him because "this" - gesturing to the vandalized ruins of the house she was born in - "is my home."

I know the history, and I know this movie inside and out. And yet I still bawl like a baby every time I see it. The power of this film and the fact that "Mississippi" is based on ACTUAL EVENTS never fails to get to me.

"Mississippi Burning" has a place in my 'Top 50 Dramas.'


I never understood why this movie was never on the Top 250. If American History X can make the Top 250 why not Mississippi Burning? Even Crash made the top 250 and this movie is way more powerful than Crash will ever be. Incredible. Mississippi Burning is a very hard film to look at but a very truthful and gritty look at racism in southern Mississippi during the Civil Rights era.

The story details FBI agents Rupert Anderson(Gene Hackman)and Alan Ward(Willem Dafoe) search for the killers an African-American male and two Jewish males. Their search takes them to the heart of Mississippi where the racism is deep-seated and the police are inflexible to a fault. They later realize how deep the police involvement in the killings were.

No other movie about race relations has moved me like Mississippi Burning has. American History X is phenomenal but it didn't make me as angry as this movie did. I wish I had the power to stop these psychos from doing what they did. Mississippi Burning was the movie that made me question my faith in organized religion. I couldn't fathom that I was believing in the same belief system that these racist lunatics were believing in. I dumped belief in organized religions after extensive research at the age of 20 but this movie sparked my curiosity. Gene Hackman is wonderful as Agent Rupert. He steals every scene he is in. Willem Dafoe is great as his partner Alan Ward. Agent Anderson(Hackman) handles things in an unconventional manner while Agent Ward(Dafoe) is by the book. This is where Dafoe showed his true potential before he started screwing up his career by appearing in raw sewage like Speed 2, Boondock Saints, Body Of Evidence and XXX: State Of The Union. Also great in this movie is Brad Dourif as the racist Deputy Clinton Pell and R. Lee Ermey as the racist mayor. I also like how they showed the views of the average ignorant Mississippian and how the cops either participated in the killing and terrorizing of Blacks in Mississippi or sat back and watched it happen.

Conclusion: Mississippi Burning is the best movie of 1989 hands down and is definitely required viewing. But be forewarned that this is not an easy movie to watch. But if you can stomach the racial violence and slurs you have a gem on your hands. I find it sad that the director Alan Parker didn't have many movies after this one.


Outstanding film dealing with the murder of 3 civil rights workers during the fiery civil rights struggle of the 1960s.

Gene Hackman is absolutely marvelous as a southern FBI agent attempting to track down the cowardly killers in this absolute thriller of a motion picture. He receives fine support from Willem Dafoe. The latter plays a northern FBI agent in conflict with Hackman as no matter what the FBI attempts to do, they are thwarted every step of the way by a bigoted, disgusting town and local law enforcement officers up to their necks in corruption and murder.

As the wife of a deputy sheriff, Frances McDormand is fabulous as an abused woman with a conscience.

The film is terrific as it shows how the bigots attempt to justify their ways as appropriate to their religion. They can cite phrases justifying the segregation system.

It was only after the FBI began to play hardball with this hoodlum element that something was able to be done.


Just when you thought I liked nothing more then "shoot-em up" or 'slap-stick' comedies.. Yes folks, this is one of my favorite movies of all times

There are some people who may dislike this movie (because the truth hurts OR whatever sick reason they have for their hatred). But those capable of enjoying a well made film - will JUST LOVE this flick.


Mississippi Burning is one of my favorite Gene Hackman movies. I remember watching it when I was young, it was one of the few rated R movies my parents would allow me to watch. Such a powerful story about the disappearance of three civil rights workers down in rural Mississippi. When the Feds are called in to investigate the disappearance, the action really heats up. Dafoe is perfect in playing the FBI agent opposite Hackman. Hackman is the charming, funny, and very smart to whats happening around him. Not that he doesnt care what he's down there for, but he's taking in the surroundings, he knows how these people operate. Dafoe is quite the opposite. Strict, by the book agent who seems to take it more seriously. Dafoe's character seems to be in shock of what's going on around him, but Hackman seems to know exactly whats wrong. Great suspense, and a great depiction of this time in history, when being black in the South might get you killed. Based on a true story.


Three civil rights activists (2 blacks, 1 white) go missing & presumed murdered by white racists (the Klu Klux Klan) in some small town in the heart of Mississippi during the race protests of 1964 .

Enter two FBI men from the North - Hackman (the bad cop, who used to be a town sherrif in the area many years ago but now hunts bigger fish whether it be within the law or otherwise ) and Willem Defoe (the good cop trying to set the world to rights with the belief that even racists can't be all that evil to want to kill).

They investigate the case using the rules laid out by the pragmatic and by-the-book Defoe. But the townsfolk aren't quite so co-operative or helpful and the two agents seem to spend more time arguing with each other over tactics or visiting burnt out homes, farms & churches belonging to the oppressed blacks in the area than getting any nearer to solving the crime.

Even with a hundred other FBI agents brought in to help out both Defoe & Hackman find it hard to get witnesses to speak up and offer any leads regarding the three young missing persons.

Eventually Hackman befriends the wife of one of the town's police officers (and suspected KKK member), wonderfully played by the ever-dependable Frances McDormand (of Fargo and Blood Simple fame). Through her Hackman learns that most of the police officers and leading townsfolk are KKK members and that the 3 activists were murdered & buried in a nearby quarry pit.

With the bodies exhumed all Hackman & Defoe need to close the case are the murderers, but to get what they want they have to play by Hackman's rules this time.....

A highly controversial film for its day (1988). Initially it was a certainty to win a host of Academy Awards for its virtuous storytelling. But various black groups protested that the film was flawed,uneven and possibly even racist. They also argued that the film portrayed the black townsfolk as defenceless, ignorant & backward, having to rely on two white FBI agents from out of town to help them win them justice.

It is fair to say that they have a point. It struck me that for most of the time the blacks portrayed in the film were blatantly stereotyped as either churchgoers, gospel singers, cotton-pickers or ignorant illiterates.

This major complaint coupled with protests from white Southerners angry at being seeing as just a bunch of hick rednecks, ended any realistic chance the film had of winning any award at all.

British director, Alan Parker took a very simplistic view of some true events the film is supposedly based on. It is true to say that the acting from both Defoe and especially Hackman is top notch, the photography and film score excellent coupled with the overall pace of the film makes for a very entertaining viewing. However, it is to the content of the film that counts most and this is where Parker's limited knowledge of the civil rights protests in the Deep South during the early 60s is painfully obvious.

I would guess that if the film was remade today one of the leads would go to a black actor of the quality of Morgan Freeman (replacing Hackman's character) or Denzel Washington (replacing Defoe's preachy, peace-loving act). At least this would've added far more balance & realism to the film without making it too overtly politically correct. Afterall why should cynical black townsfolk ever want to co-operate with white FBI agents. In their eyes all whites are just the same and to be mistrusted in equal measure.

This film could have been better perhaps from an American director rather than from an "outsider" looking in. Parker is very much like Ridley Scott at times: all style over content without really understanding what it is he is trying to portray, which is a great shame.

If one can forgive these flaws Mississippi Burning is a very good drama. Special mention has to go to the ever-dependable Gene Hackman who returns to form as the no-nonsense former sherrif who knows how the locals tick and isn't about to be fobbed off in the same way as the rather naive & clean-cut Defoe.

Overall then, Mississippi Burning, fails to get its message across but entertains us nonetheless. The acting is good, the screenplay stilted and the characterizations are pigeon-holed. But for all that this film is worth a look because even though it is very uneven the main theme of apartheid, oppression & racism between black & white Americans is a good lesson for us all to think about and realise that over the last 30 years nothing much has changed.

***/*****


The Cinematography by Peter Biziou is excellent and the acting by Gene hackman and Willem Dafoe is great.Not perfect but very entertaining and the film has a good story that is inspired by real-life events.4/5


Agent Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) and Agent Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) find themselves investigating the disappearances of three civil rights workers in a small, segregated town in Mississippi. Searching for the boys leads to them finding more corruption and hatred that could have ever been imagined.

Mississippi Burning is one of the few films that actually capture the brutality of some events that took place during this sad era in history. The audience is shocked and thrown around through a series of emotions, helping bring across the meaningless of hatred and the realism of that time period. The visual images portrayed are very hard to watch, making the film quite successful in its attempt to bring a point across.

Willem Dafoe and Gene Hackman play "the good cop, bad cop" partnership perfectly, helping create an almost flawless film. The chemistry they held was almost so obscure and confusing, it was realistic and some how gives the audience a feel of a real-life partnership. The persistence of the two men's characters was very courageous and inspiring also, making even me want to be an FBI Agent after watching the film. Overall, Mississippi Burning is a remarkable, brutal film with themes of racism and hatred scattered throughout.

I highly recommend this film.


I remember seeing this movie back in high school in RE (that's Religious Education for you folks who didn't have the 'privilage' of going to a strict Catholic Fundamentalist school) and thinking it was a pretty good movie. Despite the fact that we were 14 and the film is rated 18 over here in the UK, which was totally illegal and would never be allowed now. The other thing I remember was Trevor Jones' really cool-sounding Ry Cooder inspired score.

Since this film was loosely based on the 1964 killings of 3 Civil Rights activists, one of whom only got sentenced a few days ago, 40 years after the crime, I thought it would be appropriate to check the film out again.

It's got a good story and is well acted, especially by Hackman, who is one of my fave actors (Dafoe is too but he's not in much these days). They play two FBI Agents, who don't get on (a popular cliché at the time), down in a backwoods southern town looking for three kids who have probably been killed by evil KKK members.

The villains are despicable and Brad Dourif once again uses his wild eyes to great effect. But I was a little disappointed that none of them really got what they deserved (even though in real life it took 40 years to get justice) and got let-off with minor sentences, none of them over 10 years for the brutal killing of three people and all the mass-destruction and arson they did.

I was let-down by the ending and really wanted more red-neck, dirt-faced, hicka-billies getting their heads kicked in. And, judging from the recent televised court-case, attitude towards African-American's hasn't changed much since then. Which is pathetic.


Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning is a surprisingly good police thriller that mixes the intrigue and mystery of a police investigation with a commentary on American culture in the 1960's, and said people's attitudes towards racism. It's rare for a film to combine these elements properly, and many have failed at it, but through it's efficient pace and competent piecing together, Mississippi Burning achieves it's aim admirably. Mississippi Burning is a very professionally handled film and credit for that has to go to the director, who has a habit of putting together very professionally made films. The influence that this film has had on later crime investigation films such as the magnificent 'LA Confidential' is evident throughout, and that adds yet more credibility to the proceedings. In spite of it's turbulent plot, Alan Parker never sets out directly to shock the audience, and despite several scenes of violence, it's always the film's plot that takes centre stage and Alan Parker doesn't stray from that as many other directors have done. This film doesn't need to shock and offend to get it's message across.

The plot follows the disappearance of three men - two of them white Jews and the other a young black man. We then follow the fortunes of two FBI men that come into town to investigate the disappearance. The acting in the movie is strong throughout, with William Dafoe and Gene Hackman heading a strong cast. The two stars do a great job of drawing the audience into the movie, and the two shine throughout. They are joined by a host of lesser-known stars, such as Frances McDormand, Brad Dourif, Stephen Tobolowsky and a great little turn from Michael Rooker as a racist KKK member. The themes that are implemented into the plot are impressively portrayed, with the social study being the most prominent of them. Mississippi Burning adequately denounces hatred, and does a great job of getting across the stupidity and pointlessness of it. The film is also notable for a great atmosphere throughout, which is matched by a great soundtrack that creates a very foreboding and tension filled feeling. My only real criticism of the movie is due to it's ending, which goes on a bit and kills the atmosphere that the film has done such a good job of creating. Still, this is a very good movie and one I don't hesitate to recommend!


Okay fine the title is a little cheesy but regardless this is one heck of a good movie with a great performance by Gene Hackman. Now what I really found interesting about this movie was that in a way the director and/or writer tried to make a statement by saying that racism is taught. Which I belief is true! There is this great scene where the two agents are viewing a film of a KKK member, unhooded giving a speech while you see little kids walking around dressed like the clan. Interesting huh?

3(***)out of 4(****)stars


Whether you liked it or hated it, MISSISSIPPI BURNING will have your full attention right from the start. The movie is powerful, though it is questionable that it only won Best Cinematography at the Academy Awards. More interesting is the cinematography was not that deserving compared to the direction and acting. Gene Hackman and his role as Anderson was a standout, applauding effort.

It is Jessup County, Mississippi in 1964. Tensions are high between blacks and red-necks. Three civil rights workers are murdered. Two FBI agents, one a by-the-book fellow, the other a people smart man who was raised in Mississippi begin an investigation on it yet no one wants 'outsiders' around, thus trouble starts brewing.

The view of the Ku Klux Klan and the way they attack is shown brutally and without pulling any punches. It is amazing to think that this was not so long ago and how people perceived this sort of violence. Some of the scenes are too much and some scenes are a little dull, but MISSISSIPPI BURNING is a gripping film whether you like it or not and the two hours will seem really short.


I cannot comment on how closely this film tracked to the real life events that it supposedly follows. But as a movie, it falls short of it's potential by lapsing into the preachy and stereotypical Hollywood style which has become so commonplace in today's cinema. I doubt there are many souls left today who would deny that the KKK did some horrific things, or that there wasn't a pervasive racist culture in the South in the early 60's. But if there are, this movie tries to dispel all remaining skeptics with the subtlety of a lead balloon. By trying to tie up hatred and bigotry into one neat little package (by compartmentalizing and homogenizing groups of people), the movie fails in a rather big way. I mean, how many times have we been fed the message that all southerners are ignorant racists, that all blacks are innocent bystanders barely capable of controlling their own destinies, or that liberal educated whites are the saviors of the human race. Hardly original (or truthful).

Beyond the problem of the "message", the movie has other faults. William Dafoe just isn't, in my opinion, believable at all. From his overly done "Kennedy-esque" appearance to his constant idealistic waning (the obvious target being the "uneducated audience"), his authenticity never rings true. And did dozens upon dozens of FBI agents really wade into the Mississippi swamps without regard for their expensive suits? Well, if they did, perhaps it just shows that educated Northern white boys aren't that smart after all! Finally, if director Alan Parker's intent was to leave us in the lurch regarding Anderson's and Mrs. Pell's "relationship", he succeeded with flying colors.

On a positive note, Gene Hackman's performance is excellent. He holds it all together....well, he IS the movie. His delivery, mannerisms and character make Mississippi Burning quite enjoyable to watch from a cinematic point of view. Also top notch was Brad Dourif as Deputy Pell. Their performances almost make up for a mediocre and all-too-often condescending film


This was the worst movie I have ever seen, bar none, and I've seen some honkers. I cannot conceive of how or why it was made. It was pathetically acted, painfully scripted, and all-around stupid.


this movie rules more than buttheads will like to admit. It starts out being incredibly confusing, then you kind of figure out whats going on, then figure out you were toad-ally wrong. the highlight of the film was a man standing in a closet, falling on a box of spilled marbles. THIS IS AN AWESOME MOVIE! even though lame-os will whine about the name not making any sense, that's part of why it's so awesome. The name kind of makes sense anyway, i'll bet that half the people who hate this movie didn't make it through the first hour. They said, "THIS MOVIE SUCKS" and then turned it off long before it was over, and started to make any sense. besides, there's a picture of a girl with a huge butt on the cover, what more could you want?!?!?!?


I've seen enough of Laurence Olivier's work for the cinema to understand why, previous generations, considered him the greatest actor that ever lived. I was introduced to him in "The Boys From Brazil" so I didn't quite get it. Then in "Marathon Man" he was chilling. Only recently I've seen "Wuthering Heights" "Rebecca" "Hamlet" "Henry V" and "The Entertainer". He was unquestionably great. "The Prince and the Showgirl" presents an interesting picture of that famous "test of time" thing. The greatest actor that ever lived is, this time, not only acting with Marilyn Monroe but he's also directing her. Apparently they didn't get along. Olivier was, naturally, fed up with her lateness and her moods. He wasn't a model of diplomacy. He complained that her teeth looked yellow on the screen. That alone put her out of business for a couple of days. But now in 2005 we look at the film, forgetting all those amusing bit of nonsense and what do we see? The greatest living actor, acting, yes, acting up a storm. Doing justice to Rattingan's words and rhythms in the most respectful theatrical tradition. His performance, amusing as it is, seems completely embedded in 1957. Marilyn Monroe on the other hand travels with the times and her performance is as fresh and natural today as his is stuffy and calculated. She is glorious. Isn't funny, how time does what it does? I call it justice.