'The Baron of Arizona' has a title that makes it sound like a Western, especially since it was directed by Sam Fuller. In fact, this is a remarkable and hugely improbable drama, made even more remarkable because much of it is true.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. James Addison Reavis (1843-1914) was an obscure veteran of the American Civil War (on the losing side) who drifted into the Southwest at the time when whites were settling that region, displacing Amerindians and Mestizos. Thousands of acres were free for the taking by U.S. citizens, but the U.S. government -- under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo -- were determined to honour the existing deeds of Spanish settlers who had arrived during the time of the conquistadores. When Reavis learnt this, he hatched one of the most audacious schemes in the history of real estate: he literally stole the entire Arizona territory.

Carefully stealing 16th- and 17th-century parchments from obscure libraries, and duplicating inks from that period, Reavis forged documents deeding thousands of acres to Miguel de Peralta, a fictitious Spanish grandee. Reavis ingeniously salted these documents into legitimate archives. Among his other gambits, he traveled to Spain and infiltrated a monastery, where he unstitched the bindings of antique books, inserted his forged documents, and restitched the bindings. He invented an entire family history for the Peralta clan, planting fake documents in appropriate places in Arizona, Mexico and Spain ... even carving a message (ostensibly written by Peralta's expedition) onto a boulder in the remote Arizona desert, knowing that other developers would eventually 'discover' this.

As gringo Reavis was unable to pass for a descendant of Peralta, he then found a Mestiza girl in a Mexican orphanage, whom he supplied with (forged) documents allegedly proving her pedigree as the descendant of Miguel de Peralta. Reavis then married this 'heiress' to solidify his claim to the land. Armed with his authentic-looking deeds, Reavis then solicited backers (including William Randolph Hearst's father) to press his claims against the U.S. government.

The scam paid off, very nicely indeed. Settlers and developers -- including the officers of railway lines -- who believed they owned land in Arizona now learnt that Reavis was their landlord, and the rent would be very expensive. For several years in the 1880s and '90s, millions of dollars' worth of tribute poured into Reavis's coffers. He and his wife toured Europe, where genuine nobility treated them as fellow bluebloods, and they were even received at court by Queen Victoria. (These true incidents are not in the movie.) But then a federal investigator noticed a discrepancy in one of the documents...

Vincent Price, not yet the ham actor he would be later, gives a riveting performance as Reavis. We know from the beginning that he's a fraud, and we're in on the scam as he puts his brilliant scheme into operation. Master cameraman James Wong Howe surpasses himself here, especially in one sequence in which Price emotes with an improbably large map of Arizona behind him as a backdrop. When Reavis's scam is rumbled, the lynch mob break into his land office to hang him on the spot. In one of the best scenes of his entire film career, Price explains to his swindled victims why they'll be better off if they let him live: Reavis is the only one who can untangle the web of his forgeries.

Another fine performance is given by dwarf actor Angelo Rossitto in a supporting role. In silent films and well into the 1930s, Rossitto was cast in movies purely because of his physique, and he was a wretchedly bad actor, being especially inept with dialogue. (His scene with the armless woman in 'Freaks' is painfully inept.) By the 1950s, Rossitto had acquired some acting ability (largely through his friendship with Bela Lugosi), and he was a fine dramatic actor. I hail him as the only performer who worked with both Lon Chaney Snr *and* Mel Gibson! Sadly, Ellen Drew is far less effective here in the crucial role of Sofia de Peralta, the counterfeit Baroness who owes all her wealth to Reavis's connivances. Drew is utterly unconvincing as a Mestiza ... this is fatal to her characterisation, as the sole reason for Sofia's presence in the scheme was her Latina ancestry.

Regrettably and unnecessarily, the taut screenplay of 'Baron of Arizona' deviates from the historic record. There's evidence that the real Reavis's convoluted scheme involved at least one murder; this isn't mentioned in the film. Reavis's marriage to the false Dona Peralta produced twin sons: in this film, the two boys are combined into a single character. The movie ends touchingly: Reavis confesses his crimes, is convicted, endures the confiscation of all his wealth, and serves a long prison sentence. Years later, he emerges from prison -- broken, broke and disgraced -- and stumbles out into the rain, only to find Sofia and their son waiting for him in a carriage. 'Get in,' says Sofia tersely. In real life, the ending was much more inglorious. As soon as the money was gone, Sofia and her twin sons vamoosed into the mesquite. James Reavis spent a year in prison awaiting trial, then served two years: a surprisingly merciful sentence. He emerged an utterly broken man. Allegedly, he spent the last two decades of his life haunting libraries -- the same archives he'd previously scoured for materials -- pathetically re-reading old newspaper accounts of his past glories.

'The Baron of Arizona' is an astonishing film, with unusual subject matter, briskly told. I'll rate this movie 9 out of 10.


I only use the word surprising because I happened upon this movie very late one night a long time ago. I remember looking in the T.V. guide and seeing that I had a choice between this movie and nothing else. I mean what kind of title is this ? i remember thinking , and starring Vincent Price of all people, who at the time I could only recall from the somewhat silly "The Fly". Well I figured what the hell. So I settled in and expected to be bored and disgusted for as long as I could stand. Then the surprise happened. I was thoroughly captivated by this unique and well made story which to my other great surprise also happened to be true, the attempted theft of the entire state of Arizona by a schemer apparently without equal. Vincent Price's performance completed the trifecta by amazing me with his skill as a legitimate actor. I would very much like to see this movie again but am not hopeful at the present. Like so many others it seems to have vanished. What is interesting about this fact is that when T.V. was free, there was more to choose from, unlike today where we pay to see the same things over and over.


I liked 'scandal sheet'(1953) and 'pickup on south street'(1953) so I took a chance on 'baron of arizona'(1950) with vincent price, whom I always enjoy.....based on a true story, this film is about one man's attempt to gain ownership of the whole state of arizona.. using forgery and deception, vincent price plays the evil slouch with great power as usual....the movie begins with his showing up unexpectedly at a stranger's door in a black cape and hat in a driving rain and thunderstorm...from there the tale unfolds with mob psychology playing a key role at the end...I enjoyed this film as much as my other vincent price favorite, 'the web'(1947)..


This man went to so much trouble to own his own personal territory that you almost rooted for him. He even spent 3 years learning calligraphy so he could forge the necessary land grant documents. Too bad the U.S. government go suspicious and made his little plan harder to pull off. An unusual western and a different role than we are used to seeing Price in.


Because of the fact that the USA after the Mexican War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase which netted for the USA the southern half of Arizona, the original Spanish land grants and whoever had title to them, land office clerk James Addison Reavis hatched one bold and audacious scheme that had it been successful would have had him owning more than half of Arizona.

What you're seeing on the screen in The Baron Of Arizona is a small encapsulation of an over 20 year effort by Reavis as played by Vincent Price to pull this thing off and to stay ahead of law enforcement who after a while smelled a very large rat. Reed Hadley who narrated the film also played the part of the rat catcher.

Only a small part of the plan called for Price to marry the Peralta heir whom he created and is played by Ellen Drew. That in fact occurred very late in the game. It was only during the Nineties that Price's character marries the Drew character and goes to prison and then only for a few years. My guess is that Reavis copped a plea back in the day just to get it over with.

Still The Baron Of Arizona is a fine second film by director Samuel Fuller topped with an impressive performance by Vincent Price before he settled into the horror film genre. But the real story, believe it or not, is more fascinating than this film is.


Vincent Price is so well-known for his role in horror films that his appearance in other kinds of film is mostly forgotten. This is one of the films that illustrates he had far more range than he's often credited for.

Likewise, Lippert Films is mostly known for a lot of quickie-cheapy kinds of films; this is a quality exception, even much ahead of its time as a crime caper film.

I saw the film when it was first released, and although I was rather young at the time, the story stayed with me for decades. I finally located a copy on a VHS taped, and snapped it up. The film still works, and I'm viewing it from a far different perspective.

That the story is mostly based on historic fact is interesting, but like many caper films, what really catches the viewer's interest is the setup of the caper, with all the research, painstaking care, and the like that goes into a committing a brilliant crime. James Reavis was an incredible con man, and watching him set up each forgery is extremely interesting. Effectively, for a brief time, he effectively stole the whole state of Arizona.

(Major Spoiler) What's really nice about the film is that the change in Reavis' character is believable, showing that even the most cold-blooded plan can be warmed by affection. That's even reflected as he teeters on the brink of being hanged: his "defense" is that if he's killed, the lynchers would be cheated out of their lands; i.e., that killing him will validate his forgeries! A very memorable film, rather obscure, and highly recommended.


Only slightly less impressive than Fuller's debut is this, his second film, with an excellent and slightly restrained Vincent Price as the eponymous title character, another true-life minor figure in the history of the Old West: James Addison Reavis, who in the 1880s concocted a grand schemed to defraud the United States of a large chunk of the then-territory of Arizona through forged documents showing a Spanish land grant handed down for a century and a half to the woman he was to make his bride. Price's conviction and Fuller's straightforward direction somehow make this preposterous tale ring true (many of the basics are correct, though Fuller certainly over-dramatizes the later confrontations between Reavis and the government with its allies the homesteaders that the Baron is trying to steal from). Like I Shot Jesse James this is ultimately a tale of redemption, as the Baron, like Bob Ford, comes to understand that it is not riches and titles that make him attractive to his "Baroness" Sofia (Ellen Drew) but his character. Unlike Bob Ford, he is a man capable of learning and profiting from past mistakes.

The narration, from a clubby smoking-room, seems superfluous but fits in with Fuller's "this happened, and you are there" aims. The film does drag a bit in the last third or so, and the great character actress Beulah Bondi is essentially wasted in a small role as Sofia's tutor, but Price carries the film, and the last shot, reminiscent to me of the last moments of 'The Lives of Others' carries a powerful emotional punch. Watched on the fine Eclipse DVD.


"Baron of Arizona" is a quirky,excellent film. The fact that the main character is based upon an actual one-time real person makes it even more interesting. Price is excellent in the title role and makes you almost want him to succeed.....I emphasize almost! The supporting cast,especially Drew,also perform well. This is an overlooked,but well done film. Of course,with Samuel Fuller in charge,that's not unusual. The action is not really what draws one to watch this film; the story itself is enough to make it an interesting and watchable film. Many of the characters add a great deal to the story itself,even though at times one gets the impression that some of them are there for continuity more than realism.HIGHLY recommended.


After "I Shot Jesse James" a film which pleased the public and the critics, Fuller made "The Baron of Arizona", with Lippert, casting Vincent Price and Reed Hadley, the actor that played Jesse James. The story, which basically really happened, is about a giant fraud committed by James Addison Reavis, who pretended to own almost the whole state of Arizona. It is interesting that in spite of the damage done by Reavis, the film is sympathetic to him, creating a happy ending, which was not even true, because Reavis died alone in a shack. The story also shows how carefully Reavis planned his fraud though many years.Fuller was able to have as a cinematographer the great James Wong Howe, who wanted so much to shoot the picture that agreed to have a lower salary than usual. Fuller's direction, the great acting of Vincent Price and Wong's camera makes this a remarkable film. It is a shame it did not do so well at the box office.


Many years ago, at a festival honoring Fuller in Ann Arbor, I saw most of Fuller's pictures. (In fact it was just as his career was coming apart -- he had recently disowned "Shark" a/k/a "Caine" and was contemplating "The Big Red One," still several years off.) The incredibly audacious later pictures, especially the insanely plotted but gorgeous "The Naked Kiss," and the riveting "Underworld U.S.A." were wildly impressive, but it was clear that Fuller had something very special right from the beginning: "I Shot Jesse James" used to great advantage (for once) the disturbingly brutal and sexy talent of John Ireland, and "Park Row" (actually his fifth picture) was a fascinating inside story of the turn of the century newspaper milieu in New York. Still, I was not prepared for "The Baron of Arizona," his second film and one that seems to have provoked little critical interest over the years, to be such a disarmingly lucid and entertaining effort. The title -- suggestive of aristocracy in the lawless Old West -- is provocative -- like Sirk's "Sign of the Pagan" strange and paradoxical, making one ask in advance "What kind of film could this possibly be?" Well, it turns out to be something quite interesting: a study of a unique character, embedded in a historical context. What's most interesting is following one's sympathy and antipathy to the Baron character (played really quite subtly by -- yes! -- Vincent Price). His goal, to achieve through forgeries and deceit not only the ownership to the entire Arizona territory but hereditary title to it as well -- is mad and imaginative enough to elicit strong interest from the viewer -- without actually gaining our sympathy. We want him to succeed because he wants to succeed, but we want him to fail for his own good (and that of his very sympathetically portrayed wife, not to mention all the settlers in Arizona). Fuller manipulates our emotions with great skill, which perhaps should not be surprising: he is clearly one of the born storytellers of late Classic cinema. Ellen Drew plays his wife (and victim) very charmingly, and Beulah Bondi, while given disappointingly little to do, is always a pleasure to watch. The one minor weakness of the film is the slow-paced and clumsy opening -- interestingly shot, with Reed Hadley's back to us as he narrates the story's pre-history, but drearily deliberate. Once the story proper begins, though, the pace is brisk (one is indeed surprised at one point to find that three years have elapsed in the course of one dissolve!), and Hadley ultimately is very good as the forgery expert who is the Baron's downfall.


Although I am a US history teacher, I'd never heard about James Reavis and his claim to be the Baron of Arizonia (most of modern Arizona). So I was fascinated to see a film about this huckster who had the audacity to try to claim this huge chunk of territory as his own private land in the late 19th century. So fascinated that I did a bit of research on Reavis after I finished the movie.

It seems that when the US got this land from Mexico, it promised to honor all existing land grants. Reavis, a talented forget and swindler, concocted a complicated scheme to take this land--a claim that ALMOST worked!

The film stars Vincent Price in one of his earlier starring roles. While he'd been in Hollywood for about a decade, most of the time he was relegated to supporting roles. Here in THE BARON OF ARIZONA, he was clearly the star and the film benefited from his fine acting. However, you may be surprised to see Price acting a bit more like an action hero at times in the film, as he is much more macho than his usual persona--occasionally resorting to kicking the snot out of his enemies!

The film was one of the earliest directorial efforts of the legendary Sam Fuller. While I didn't like how the story was fast and loose with the real facts of the case, Fuller must be commended for making such a professional looking film with only 15 days shooting!! Usually such a quickly made film would be a cheap horror film along the lines of an Ed Wood movie, but this one has all the polish of an A-picture.

As for the plot, despite the facts that so much of the script is wrong, it still is a very captivating movie and at least it captures the essence of who Reavis was--even though the details are more than a little wrong. This playing fast and loose with details is fairly common in Hollywood films of the era, so I don't hold this against the film that much.

Overall, the film is fascinating, tough to stop watching and a quality production throughout most of the film. However, despite Fuller's reputation for not being a sentimentalist, the last 15 minutes of the film are indeed heavy on sentiment and actually is about the worst part of the film. Plus, in reality Reavis only got a 2 year sentence (not 6) and his wife did indeed leave him--and the way the film ended and how he was caught is pure fiction.

For a much more correct version of the real case, see http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/baron.html . It has a link to a very exhaustive site by Michael Marinacci. Oddly, the true facts of the case are in many ways much more interesting than this film!!


Vincent Price plays James Addison Reavis, a government clerk in a land office in Arizona, who tries to swindle his way to owning the entire territory through forged documents and an elaborate plan that the film does a good job in bringing to life. He sets up his plan by establishing a false identity for young Sofia (who becomes beautiful Ellen Drew) which makes her essentially the heiress to the whole Arizona Territory. Price pulls off the part with great talent, playing a womanizing opportunistic scoundrel with great smoothness. The story is pretty good when Reavis returns to the Arizona Territory with false documents in hand and starts to implement his plan to become the Baron of the whole territory after marrying Ellen Drew, the so-called Baroness de Peralta. It's her love and devotion to him that ultimately undermine his plans, though the government was starting to get on to his forgery. The film tells a great story and Price is at his best in this role, trying to reestablish the Spanish Empire in the Wild West.


Price is a con-man with a dream. He finds an orphaned girl, forges a pedigree for her, and instructs a governess to make a baroness out of her. While she grows up, Price puts the finishing touches on forgeries making the girl baroness of Arizona, heiress to an entire region. The girl worships her savior, who marries her for the swindle and then ... but I won't spoil the ending. You're not likely to find this one at the video store, but if you see it on the late-nite movie, pop up some popcorn and give it a look.


At 2:00 am the story line would not let me go to bed. Had to stay up and finish till the end. Enjoyed it. If you are movie fan of old movies (and 50's TV) you will know many of the character actors faces (but not the names). Vincent Price was only name that I knew. All the rest have been in a billion movies. The story line was fantastic if it was true.


This is the first movie of what was to become director Mani Ratnam's "political trilogy" ("Bombay" and "Dil Se" being the movies to follow). While not quite as accomplished as the later movies, he develops a very simple story of a young married couple, the subsequent kidnapping of the husband and the wife's attempts to persuade the authorities to help free him into a well-rounded movie that works on almost all levels that it encompasses:

The love relationship between the two main characters is credible and well-handled; the struggle of the individual citizen vs. government authorities and individual desires vs. the larger scale of politics is dealt with intensely (the scene where the Colonel tells Roja that "everyone is happy" is simply chilling), and even the interplay of the kidnapped and the terrorists works out really well, even if it seems sometimes that Rishi Kumar was lucky ending up with these rather than more ruthless people.

The only problem that I have with this movie are a small handful of scenes in which Indian patriotism is showcased in what I felt was a rather blunt manner (but then, coming from a different country, I may lack some essential cultural background to understand it).

Apart from this one quibble I think it's a good movie that you should really see, especially I've you've seen Mani Ratnam's other films. Acting is solid, especially from Pankaj Kapoor as the terrorist leader, but also from Arvind Swamy as Rishi (except perhaps when he goes into patriotic overdrive). Also on-screen chemistry between Arvind and Madhoo is fabulous. The music is an early, often charming ("Dil hai chhota sa") score by A. R. Rahman.

Watch it.


For once it is reasonably clear why the heroine falls in love with the hero, and also the motivation of the hero, even if it is unlikely, is well presented. This was one of the few movies that actually made me cry, and its images of Kashmir are beautiful.


What a movie!!!! This is one movie that i can watch again and again. It was like a breath of fresh air in the stinking stench of typical Hindi movies. This movie gave me hope that Indians too can make decent movies!! But honestly, this movie was much much better then just DECENT!!! I love this movie. I love the guy's passion when he is trying to save the flag from fire!!! What a scene yaar!!!! forget that ..........i say what a movie yaar!!!!!!!!

Everyone who loves cinema and is a movie buff, should definitely have ROJA DVD in their collection! If they don't then they are liars and they don't love cinema and movies!!!!!!


Seen it ages ago ,still the memories stay as fresh as seen the first time. The deep struggles endured against militants who are humans also are brilliantly depicted in the movie. Well in the original language of the movie the scenes of village girl trying to cope up with the big city and north Indian culture are very vividly depicted by Mani(lost in translation in other languages). With a crew of supremely talented technicians and back ground staff Mani brings us another classic. He should also be credited for getting the best tunes of a innocently brilliant music genius. They just don't make music like those anymore. Personal Rating 10/10. I would prefer him to direct a movie remake of "THE TENANT" (original by Polanski)


This movie gets a 10/10 simply because of its uniqueness but that does not mean that it is not without flaws. I'll get to that later. The terrorism component has been shown very disturbingly. The big flaw I feel is that which the director discovered but failed to exploit fully. I'm talking about the language barriers between the north and south and how frustrating it can be especially in the light of a tragedy. Well he might have actually done more than I can remember because I saw this movie more than a decade ago. The most important thing about this movie that it was AR Rehman's débutant music score, before which he was just doing just music for advertisements. Well done Mani Ratnam for exploiting AR Rehman fully.


As a Background, this is the first time, we have seen Mani Rathnam write and direct a movie, that involves the conflict of terrorism and more of a global movie (concerning India) rather than Tamil Nadu. When I first saw this movie, I was moved in tears by the story, direction and music. This is by far the best directed movie I have seen by Mani Rathnam (even better than Iruvar), mostly because the story flowed so smoothly and the subtle details that were present, especially when Rishi Kumar (Arvind Swamy) was kidnapped.

So to start of with the plot, the story revolves around Rishi Kumar and Roja (Madhoo), who get married in the beginning after many hurdles faced by both of them. Rishi Kumar originally was supposed to marry Roja's sister, but after Roja's sister confessed to Rishi Kumar, that she is in love with someone else, but cannot marry him now, due conflicts between their families. Rishi, then takes the blame for not marrying her, by saying he was in love with her younger sister, Roja. Due to the fact, that Rishi Kumar is well educated, handsome, and holds a good job, they were unwilling to refuse to Rishi Kumar's request, and Roja ends up marrying Rishi Kumar, and her older sister marries the person she loves. Due to Rishi Kumar's rejection of Roja's sister, she resents Rishi Kumar, until he tells her about why he chose to not marry her. After realizing her sister was happy with her husband, she begins to fall in love with Rishi Kumar.

Due to the illness of Rishi's boss, Rishi had to take a special project in Kashmir, where he as a cytologist, had a special task of cracking codes from the enemies. Due to the insistence of Roja, Rishi takes Roja with him, to Kashmir. Due to the high profile security around both Rishi and his wife, the terrorist who are demanding freedom for Kashmir, uses this as an opportunity and kidnaps Rishi Kumar, and asks the government to release a terrorist leader, who has killed many, Wasim Khan. Due to the nature of the situation, the government refused to release Wasim Khan for Rishi Kumar. This leads Roja, to plead with the police and the heads of government, to do anything to free her husband. From the pleading of Roja, the government finally allows Wasim Khan to be released, for Rishi Kumar, to the disappointment of head police chief (Nasser), who worked hard to imprison Wasim Khan. Finally in the end, when the exchange was supposed to take place between Wasim Khan and Rishi Kumar, the terrorist just give them clothes of Rishi Kumar, and Wasim Khan was immediately taken back, since the terrorist didn't keep up with their end of the deal. In the end, we realize that the terrorist couldn't hand over Rishi Kumar, since he escaped, and Rishi Kumar faces off with the head terrorist (Pankaj Kapoor), who after many conversations with Rishi Kumar, changed him as a person, and lets him go. The film ends with Rishi Kumar and Madhoo, reuniting at the end.

The greatness of this movie is the direction of Mani Rathnam and music by A.R. Rahman. This is by far the best music produced by A.R. Rahman, and from Roja to Slumdog Millionaire, I would say his debut film, Roja, was the best movie, he has made music for. The most moving moments in the movie, are scenes after Rishi Kumar gets kidnapped. When Pankaj Kapoor, tries to make him plead for release of Wasim Khan on a recorder, He refuses and says "Jai Hind" and every time he says it, he gets beaten by his guards, until finally they point the gun at him to shoot, and he continues to say "Jai Hind", at which moment, Wasim Khan stops them from shooting him. Another good moments from the movie, is the interaction between Roja and the police chief (Nasser), where the police chief doesn't believe that Wasim Khan should be released for a normal citizen like Rishi Kumar, and he should risk his life for the country. To which Roja, asks if he would say the same, if it was the son of the prime minister, or anyone related to someone in power. Also when Roja, confronts Wasim Khan in jail, and asks him why he is trying to kill someone who is innocent, for his personal gain. And further asks him why he doesn't just go to Pakistan, if he does not like India, and stop killing innocent civilians like her husband. The best moment in the movie I believe is the moment, when one of the terrorist guard informs (Pankaj Kapoor) that they have refused to release Wasim Khan, and for the bad news he takes out the flag, and tries to burn it. Rishi Kumar reacts to this by forcefully breaking the window, and jumping over the flag, to extinguish the fire. And he tries to fight off the guards, and finally gets restrained by them. The background music for this scene was well done, and the camera work, where one cannot see the flag, until he burns it, was very well done by Mani Rathnam. Overall the plot, direction, music, make this one of the finest Tamil movies ever taken. The acting by Arvind Swamy and Madhoo was excellent. Overall this is a great movie, especially if you enjoy patriotic movies, like Border, Kargil etc.


The threat of terrorists in India meshed with mild romance is the summary of this movie. Roja(the rose) the heroine is an innocent girl whose newly wed husband gets kidnapped by Pakistani terrorists. The story revolves around how she runs from pillar to post to get her husband freed. The movie is quite intense in the later parts.


I saw this movie 3 times.. lovely songs and locations. The story line is too good..


This movie is inspired from Italian movie Desica's Girasoli, I (1970),neverthless no complaints because i don't believe in originality.The movie is worth watching because of good story and flow of the story.A.R.Rehmans score and P.C.Sreeram's camera is beautiful.The movie has romance and patriotism.Good natural performance by the acting team also.Maniratnam was in great form during this period,he gave continuous hits of Mouna Ragam,Nayagan,Agni Natchathiram,Geethanjali,Anjali,Thalapathi.There were many cute scenes in the movie.It is also visually stunning.

Even Vittoria Desica might have been happy watching this movie because such a solid,positive enhancement of his work.


Folks, this is the epic to look out for at international movie festivals! I have had the opportunity to see this on big screen, in full sound- and was blown away! Though I couldn't understand everything, the action within the film was clear enough to make the general plot understood. Though it is not an American film- it has authentic period costume, fantastic cinematography, and in my opinion has met or surpassed special effects of such films as the Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, and the Matrix. Of course, it probably won't get the recognition it deserves in North America, as it isn't a home-grown... but it is well worth the trip to the theatre to see it if is ever in town... I'm going to see it for at least another 2 times if possible! The only disappointment was the pop-type music for the closing credits... everything else: SUPERB!


Turetskii Gambit / Turkish Gambit is a good movie, a loyal adaptation of the book by Boris Akunin (Although the makers chose to change the identity of the Turkish spy at the end - obviously to shock the audience already familiar with the book. Worked on me.) The acting, direction and cinematography are all praise-worthy. Close-ups, camera movements, and pans are all cleverly done. Special effects add to the pace of the movie, and the director succeeds in smoothly integrating high-tech tools with traditional storytelling methods. The one thing disappointed me was the omission of a large part of the story describing and narrating the siege of Plevne. The production somewhat fails to emulate the book in that sense, as the siege, related battles and their effects on the Russian army were not portrayed effectively.

As a Turk with an interest in Russian history, I particularly enjoyed the film. The costumes, equipment and places looked very authentic. It was the most accurate depiction of Turkey and Turks in a non-Turkish film so far. I thank the gods that it was not a Hollywood movie.

(SPOILER) I think, changing the identity of the Turkish Spy is a wise choice for the surprise effect, but it definitely weakens the plot of the story. Original spy (D'Hevrais) had a better background story, better reasons, and a better plan.


cool movie; it keeps you in eye contact and bounds to its subject. I do not know how accurate it is historically but the film was more objective than I accepted. I was a bit prejudiced about the film at the beginning but as the movie continued I realized that I am wrong. I felt some exaggeration also.It shows turks as perfect warriors technically and very mysterious killers The figurine turks used in the backgrounds had actually a comic Azerbaijan accent and spoke very unrelated words in fight scenes I think the director used them since they knew Russian

, so it would be more economic. there were many replicas copied from Hollywood film-making also such as focusing camera on objects very fast and too much mise-en scene.But usage of maps as a very dynamic part of film was very original and entertaining. The character Enver Bey who was a spy of Ottoman Pasha have been chosen as a person who looked like a Russian and spoke perfect Russian language but hiding him till the end of the film was not interesting and new enough for such a box office one in Russian Federation but I think it is worth for watching, good film


Yes, it is true that most of the people think that this movie contains too many visual effects, but this is not completely true. It seems so, because most of the watcher actually do not expect that from a Russian movie. But let me clarify where did they get the effects from. Most of the strange and a little bit animation scenes are taken from the Panorama of the Pleven Epopee - this is a monument of the Pleven Siege, which is the overturn in the Russo-Turks War(1877-1878). And about the monument - in there are the battle scenes and everything is made from wax and seems pretty much real. Because about 10 000 soldiers and citizens of Pleven have died in a small valley - about 2 square km surface. So, I see this movie as a modern admission of what had been done before - and of course paying salute to the tremendous people, who have been fighting for ideas.


It is rare to see a Russian movie made so tasteful and visually appealing. I agree that some special effects were overdone and unnecessary, taking away from the overall appeal of the film, but I really hope an English version could come out so I can see it with the rest of my family. While other users complain of the historical inaccuracies of this movie I do not think this is something people should dwell on too much. This movie is for someone who enjoys a movie with beautiful scenery and gripping effects (when they are appropriate). This is truly the best Russian movie that I have ever seen.


I enjoyed the acting and the plot... but the rest kept reminding me that I should not spend much time in front of a TV. Perhaps it's a big step for modern Russian movie industry, but am I wrong for desiring a movie that is _done_ better?

I agree with those who commented that movie looks unrealistic and sound is barely comprehensible. What are those colorful costumes in so perfect clean/ironed/etc condition every day for both Russian and Turkish soldiers? Is that a war or a parade?

Now the sound - it's mostly muffled and is quite colorless. I'm feeling really bad for those who spent their energy playing there.

A few things look odd in the context of the war story. Maybe it's just my personal perception. Harry-Potter-like effects when Fandorin goes into his memories, looks plain over-done to me. The way the machine (which looks like a train) is shown reminds me about some comedy, and not so much about a war story - again, odd in the context. I'm OK to have bright and fun side in a war move... but not to the level of comics.

Unfortunately, these things take away a lot from the overall feeling of otherwise great movie.


in actors play there are several anachronisms 1. on these epoch women impossible to be such a leader! Sawing, kids or something - yes but spy - no way! 2. Fandorin acts like Rambo (shooting Turks in beginning) - no such tactics is possible in these days - they fight very different 3. soldiers - in these days Russian army was full of hard mans - not geeks and so on. Stupid but soldiers. In the movie they are gay, geeks, and non stop talking 4. Bulgarians playing dice - not at all.They drink "rakia", but not such plays dice - i think. 5. Women in these days is imaginary to say her own thought - but in the movie girl acts like emancipating ones.

I don't like this movie - good idea but it is ridiculous...


Lots has already been said - including the huge advertising campaign (centring on a poster, supposedly of a scene in the beginning of the film but as a painting, not a movie still. The entertaining bit is when you realise that the costume that Varvara is wearing is all wrong for this moment in the film! Think about it!). The beginning of a run on Fandorin films, with Statskii Sovetnik coming out in May, the trailer for which was showed with TG (as for Sovetnik - as far as casting goes I've heard it discussed as the Russian Ocean's Twelve)! Though the cast list for TG is certainly nothing to sniff at either! And I have to say, the cast do themselves proud, very good acting, costumes, scenery etc. You are led right into their world. I found the computer special effects annoying, overused, and frankly distracting, but the rest of the film was great. I had not read Akunin before, and went right out and bought the book - and am now reading Statskii Sovetnik to prepare for May. I had worked out who the spy was, though I did that in the book straight off too, but it was well done, there are plenty of false trails to keep you guessing. I have to say I liked the ending, especially that they stayed true to Akunin's ending to the relationship between Fandorin and Varvara - rather than coming over all Hollywood and having them riding off into the sunset.


This movie surprised me in every way a movie can.

First: I can't believe Russians made such an awesome movie (i surely can call it a Masterpiece). I would never expect something like that from Russian directors.

Second: acting was perfect. Yegor Beroyev was the best Erast Fandorin of all Erast Fandorin's there ever were ("Statskii sovetnik",..).

Third: the plot. Film is based on a Russian - Turkish war, and that war is not based on strength and power of two armies, it is also based on smart tricks, (like assassinating the general by pretending that Turks are giving up). Directors show that very well (a lot of movies based on wars are all about power, greatness etc. etc., that's not really true.

Fourth: special effects. When i first heard that this film is similar to "Nocnoj dozor" i was disappointed (when i finished watching "Nocnoj dozor" i was really very mad, because i didn't like it), but when i watched "Tureckii gambit" i understood that only thing similar in these two films is special effects (sure special effect were nice in "Nocnoj dozor" but surely not the plot").

So this is it. This movie will surely go in into my list of all time favorites. And i strongly recommend you to watch this movie.


Turetskii gambit contains all of the elements of a great film. The acting is underplayed. The cinematography is perfection itself. The colors are muted in concert with the drama itself. One can only desire an extension of the romantic relationship with Yegor Beroyev himself and his lovely sweetheart. There are very dramatic moments including the duel on the pier. The snow scenes are reminiscent of "Dr. Zhivago". I can highly recommend this picture for those romantics at heart. Alexander Pushkin would be proud to see this serious play in cinematic form. It is now in DVD format with excellent soundtrack and special features. This is one not to miss.


This film is the following step of the Russian cinema forward, after " Night Patrol ". The substantial party has provided Boris Akunin under which same book film has been taken off. And here the entertainment part, special effects, statement, game of actors, dynamics - is higher than any praises. I am the admirer of Hollywood, but I look with interest and behind development of Russian of cinema. And me sees, that it has very iridescent prospects. Film is obligatory to viewing for all. It has very much liked me. Simply very good and qualitative cinema. Here its summary: 1877, Russian-Turkish war. Taking part in military actions as the Serbian volunteer titular counsel Erast Fandorin makes the way in a general staff of Russian command with the important confidential message. On a way he gets acquainted with charming young lady, Varvaroi Andreevnoi Suvorovoi, going in an arrangement of Russian armies to see groom Petej Yablokov - cryptographer the Joint Staff. Having reached the, Fandorin informs general Sobolevu on the artful flank maneuver conceived by Turks. From him follows, that it is necessary to occupy with Russian urgently Plevna for the case there goes Osmanli turk - plough. At general - aide-de-camp Mizinova, former chief Fandorina, the order of the commander-in-chief is already prepared on this account, which Peter Yablokov urgently ciphers and sends. Besides at Mizinov there is for Fandorin one more task not from simple. The question is Anvar - Efendi, the secretary of sultan Abdul-Gamida. This interesting Turk personally heads confidential operation against Russian. Mister desperate, with adventurous bent. Can quite appear itself in the Russian rate and leave for due to the European appearance and faultless possession of several languages. In the evening of the same day it becomes known, that Russian armies have occupied Nikopol. And hardly arrest Petju Yablokov later: in the encryption sent by him instead of a word "Plevna" the word "Nikopol" has appeared. Result of this disinformation was the capture Turkish armies of the unprotected Plevna. Shocked Cooking begs Fandorin to help the groom. Erast Petrovich it is confident: to get out Petyu it is possible, only finding the true originator happened. Similar, Anvar's free working in the Russian rate this handwork. It is necessary to calculate the Turk urgently. But how? In fact all are suspected...


...Personally, I'm one of Akunin fans... I read almost all his books... And I find the "Adventures of Erast Fandorin" series really worth reading... The story is always interesting, the suspense is on the highest level and the action is truly unique...

So "Turetskiy Gambit" is out... And I saw it some time ago... And I must say, that it IS really an instant classic... The film has its pros, but also unfortunately (IMHO) several cons... My explanations will follow...

*Spoiler Alert*

...The beginning seemed a bit strange for me... Why is Fandorin running and shooting Turks? Hey, this bit wasn't even in the book! Besides, I have never seen this Beroyev guy, so I didn't even recognize him, as Fandorin... I even thought, that I had a wrong film handed to me... Fortunately, things arranged quite fast and I started watched... My interest grew fast... However, I didn't understand, why wasn't Fandorin able to pick up the dynamite and throw it back to the Turks? Was it fear? Strange, he was never a coward in the book... He was colder there... Oh, well...

Anyway, let's continue... Eh, what's this? Fandorin is spying on Anvar-effendi - another bit not to be featured in the book... Hmmm... I liked the part, where colonel Ismail-Bei appears on the stage... Personally, I like Kutsenko very much (his performance in "Antikiller" and its sequel was remarkable) and I enjoyed his performance in the movie... He was pretty cool, as a brave and smart Turkish Forces Commander... It was a shame, he was killed later... Of course, the question of existence of this character in the movie remains a puzzle to me, for the book never featured such a person... But I think, that this addition didn't really spoil the film...

The rest of the film follows the book closely, but some changes to the story do occur sometimes... I liked the big air balloon scene - it was a brilliant novelty, as for me... The gay duo scene was hilarious in the beginning - watch Fandorin yell at those poor guys... "It's an army, not a bordello for Christ's sake!" Kinda reminds me of the operator (Tolik) character from "Nochnoy Dozor" and his menacing yell: "THAT'S NOT HER MOTHER!!!" lol But the rest of the scene turns out to be rather bloody... Well, it's a good twist however...

*Global Spoiler Alert*

But the ending... Oh no, how could it be? Why did Akunin simplify the story to this point in the script? Yes, it was pretty predictable, who the spy really was from the beginning given the strange circumstances of his introduction... But in the book it was no more than a distraction... The real spy thing was much better developed in the book... So, I don't understand, why was Perepelkin ("Kazanova" from "Menty") made the main villain (Anvar), rather than d'Hevrais (and yes, it's d'Hevrais, not D'Evre, as it's written in the "Cast" section here), who was the villain in the book... As for me, I think, that this simplification was totally unnecessary... For an Akunin fan, like me, it's a disappointment...

Also, the ending action sequence with Fandorin fighting Anvar was a bit lame... Varya killed Anvar, not the great Fandorin... And _he_ was so weak - he didn't even manage to wound the spy seriously... That's a major disappointment for me...

*Global Spoiler Alert ends here*

*Spoiler Alert ends here*

Now, I will explain the major pros and cons: Pros: The casting is fairly good... The only disappointment I found was the main role... I don't know - somehow Beroyev gives a bit wooden performance (IMHO)... Viktor Verzhibitskiy is great as Lucan, the Romanian colonel... Great and charismatic... Olga Krasko (Varya) was just as I imagined her while reading the book - a beautiful, but extremely naive young woman... Baluyev (general Sobolev) is in his usual war-hero-and-great-master-and-commander role... It suits him well... Kazanzaki (he is credited as Kazinaki on IMDb - LOL) was also, as I imagined him... Mizinov (Savelich from "Russkiy bunt" and Gryaznov from "Marsh Turetskogo" - sorry for the pun here) is great too... Zurov is a bit strange here - somehow I think it's not a role for Pevtsov (IMHO again)... McLaughlin was too, as I imagined him... Petya reminded me, of course, of Tolik from "Nochnoy Dozor"... Now I don't even know, who is funnier... But the actor I liked the most, was Didier Bienaime (d'Hevrais)... Boy, was he cool! His smile, his calm way of speaking - it was just perfect... What a shame this actor died... *sigh* Memory eternal...

The general atmosphere of a spy thriller...

The costumes and the decors...

The special effects (although, I didn't understand, what were these falls from the suddenly appeared mountains in the beginning)...

The changes to the story (except the ending)...

The action (although sometimes the camera moves way too fast, like in "Antikiller 2")...

The suspense...

Cons: The battles... Way too short... *sigh*

The war atmosphere... That's what I find the most disappointing (it's #2, the ending was #1)... In my opinion it wasn't well recreated...

Beroyev's acting...

The ending and the identity of the real spy...

...Anyway, that's it... "Gambit" is a good movie, even an excellent one, but it could have been much much better...

I hope to see "Statskiy Sovetnik" soon... People say, it's even better...

Mister Nameless.

P.S. The last strange thing - why do they make a film on "Statskiy Sovetnik" (the 6th book) after "Turetskiy Gambit" instead of "Leviafan", which is supposed to be the 3rd book in the series? This question still bugs me...


I have to disagree with some of the comments on this movie, judging the movie by some different criteria.

Firstly, the plot line idea of this motion picture is not as irrational as it may appear to some of us. this film was based on a novel that served a purpose to provide its readers a war-romance-conspiracy adventure. It is not very much different from the American "Patriot" story where a greater salad has been composed, with pretty trite issues thrown around. Beside that, to support the illusive reality of the Turkish war presented in this film - we are not very familiar with the general atmosphere during the 19th century wars, but there are things that simply called: War routine. Of course there is blood and gore and death on the front lines of the battles. Surely there is a lot of strategy going on behind the scenes. But even during these climax moments, and mostly in-between those there was always a place for some dramatic drawbacks, singing in the club and even relationships between young Russian soldiers and coffee drinking in Plevna. Wars are not always fought in face to face battles. And a very large part in deciding who wins the fight is the strategy and the information you gather about your enemy. Which was what the story concentrated on. The spies.

Moreover, I did not like the acting. Sometimes it was exaggerated and underplayed in some places. The best acting in this movie on my scale was that of the "Gusar" officer - so typically presenting the character. The leading roles could have been performed better.

And lastly: the sound. What is it with the Russian cinema that I can never get a normal sound feature? They put the theme on top of the dialogues, the battle effects lack intensity, the speech is incomprehensible. When Turkish is spoken, the Russian translation starts after a little delay, which makes it really difficult to hear. They don't mute the environment when it is needed, and the explosion sounds still have the usual echo-shrieking effect. Alas! indeed.

Overall, once the viewer can get himself to connect to the plot, to enter the minds of both the Turkish and the Russian combatants and to merge with the general 19th war atmosphere - it is possible to simply sit back and enjoy this movie as another spy-adventure. Was tempted to give it an 8, but settled on 7.


First I have to ask. Why Studio Tritey loves to hate Russians? I know it is in Russia, but each movie is about horrifying deaths of Russians. This self-hate is not healthy.

Russians have to be the biggest idiots in the whole movie, except for Fandorin and Suvorova every other Russian character is either a traitor or an idiot. In reality Russian Forces were far more intelligent and imaginative during the Russo-Turkish War then the movie suggests. The Russian Army outsmarted the Turkish Army when it crossed the Danube at night catching the enemy with their guard down and seizing Russia's 1st victory of the war.

Do the writers wish the Turks won the war? Do they sympathize with the Ottoman Empire? If not, then why do the Turks seem like Military geniuses while the Russians look like morons? Osman Pasha's Envoy carries out deadly raids into Russian camps without much opposition. I was very disappointed. I hope 1st Channel never puts its name next to Studio Tritey again.


I am Russian and I just checked this movie out because i heard so much about it. I find this movie OK. It's not a masterpiece. But it's much better than the other Russian blockbuster Night Watch. However, both of these films have something bad in common and it's the immature obsession of excessive cheesy visual effects. When watching these high budget movies you start thinking the filmmakers forget that it's not the visual effects that make movie a good movie. Those parts in the movie, where they show the dark abyss all the time and then this LOTR style map pops up with a wheel falling down - it just doesn't look good, it looks totally tasteless. I mean the producers spent so much resources to make all those costumes and setups, but when you see something like this, it just ruins the whole point. Bad bad taste. Hopefully, in future Russian filmmakers will grow out this unhealthy obsession and start making great and stylish movies.


I gave 2 points out of ten, and those 2 points for visual effects, technique and colorful costumes. The rest? Crap. I don't know how to describe it...maybe like 1960s' James Bond movies, childish. What they call "historic events" is just a plot, a scene for the movie, nothing to do with real historic events as the movie does not have such a purpose....The maps are just a decoration, which really look good, but again unreal. That is OK, but why do they try so hard in the advertisements and so on to show it as a "historic movie" And if the movie is really an action movie, why do they depict Turks not only as villains, but also ugly and stupid? In many scenes Turks stumble and fall! They cannot run, they cannot hold a gun properly and fire! If we were in 1930s maybe we would laugh....But now, it felt disgusting. Heyy, look around guys, finance is just a prerequisite for making films, it shouldn't be the film itself. (((


The advertising campaign for this movie in Russia was huge! Even more tremendous than for another Russian blockbuster - Nochnoi Dozor. But wait a second... What was the fuss all about? I really wanted to like this one, but... alas! I couldn't.

I was looking forward to see a really epic movie with the matching atmosphere, but what I got was nothing, but some kind of a pretty weird interpretation of the war. The disappointment from this film is very similar to the one after watching Cold Mountain.

The acting was good & deserves nothing, but praise. But what the hell is with the story? The whole Russian camp looks like a circus, some scenes are absolutely irrelevant, reminding me some stuff from dumb Wild Wild West movie & the scene with the air-balloon is one of the most ridiculous ever! But the main problem is... predictability! I knew who the spy was long before the end of the film! To tell you the truth, I really wanted to leave, but decided to stay & see if I was right in my guessing. Needles to say, I was.


I watched this movie three times at different ages of my life and always did enjoy it very much indeed. This Can-Can is an authentic explosion of joie de vivre, like Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly musical, but in French way. And a Jean Renoir nice tribute to his time, his friends, lovers, music and dances. It is at same time a show business chronicle of that age, full of affection and French mood. It is too a clear tribute to the Impressionism (people who likes impressionistic painters will like this picture). It is particularly a tribute to Toulouse-Lautrec and, of course, to Jean Renoir father, Pierre-Auguste. You will find hear a trustworthy and splendid colored recreation of some Renoir master work. Excellent casting, scenery, sound-effects and music. Even it tell us about the creation of Parisian Moulin Rouge, obviously it is a fiction story (and not very original by the way, as it fall down in the very well know moral that the show must go on). But the Jean Renoir production is great.


This is my favorite Renoir from the Fifties. It's the story of how Henri Danglard built and launched the Moulin Rouge nightclub; we see the workmen blasting at the site to get construction underway, and the training of the dancers. Finally, the giddiness of opening night and the long sequence of cancan dancing. Financial problems and the ego displays of the performers are described.

Gabin is in great form as the easy-going Danglard--see him deal humorously with Nini's violent boyfriend. Gianni Esposito is moving as the wistful Prince who is courting Nini. Maria Felix, with that amazon's body, is imposing as the egotistical Lola, Danglard's first lover. Finally Françoise Arnoul as Nini the washing girl who ends up dancing for Danglard, and becoming his girl, is just stunning; her loveliness and pert charm will win you over.

A bonus: we get Edith Piaf, Patachou, André Claveau and other stars in cameos playing the stars of a century ago who ruled over the Moulin rouge.


"French Cancan" is one of my favorite all time movies. It's an excellent film. There's color, there's humor, there's music. It's a very good portrait of the so called Belle Époque, though Jean Renoir's priorities were always to show a creation, a fantasie. So the film isn't a historical movie. The final sequences in which the girls dance cancan are unforgettable images. It's a film you shouldn't miss.


Although it doesn't seem very promising for a long stretch, Renoir's French Cancan ends up being an effortlessly charming film. The story is cliché: a laundry girl, Nini (Françoise Arnoul), is discovered by a night club owner, Danglard (Jean Gabin). Danglard steals her from her baker boyfriend and drops his current girlfriend, both of whom come back for their former lovers. Nini has to choose whether to go back to her humble life with the baker, go on with the show with her employer, oh, or become a princess, as a prince falls in love with her at one point, too. I'm glad the film didn't go for the most obvious choice, as a lesser film certainly would have. The film ends with the opening of Danglard's new night club, the Moulin Rouge, and a couple of gorgeous song and dance numbers. The first of them, "Complainte de la Butte," which also provides the base of most of the film's musical score, is simply one of the most gorgeous songs ever written, and Renoir himself wrote it. If you're a fan of Baz Luhrmann's 2001 film Moulin Rouge!, you'll recognize the tune, as it comes up near the beginning of that film, sung by Rufus Wainwright. Although it isn't very prominent in that film, everyone I know who owns the soundtrack loves it. In addition to having one of the most lovely songs ever written, French Cancan also boasts one of the cutest leading ladies ever to grace the screen. It's hard not to fall head-over-heels in love with that girl. 8/10.


Renoir's tale of Paris,the Cancan,a washer-girl and the Moulin Rouge.A more subdued,but highly entertaining version of the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin gives his usual excellent performance.The Technicolor photography on the print I saw was exquisite.An easy evening's viewing. chris w galla


There are frames in this film that could be Renoir paintings with vivid colors against muted backgrounds. The humorous combination of sexual honesty and innocence is refreshing in this fifties film and makes palatable the old story line of the ingenue that becomes a star. The can-can number at the end seems realistic and exciting but not over the top as in an American dance sequence.


Jean Renoir's homage to the Paris of the late 19th century is beautiful in many ways. Not only does it appear to have been photographed by Toulouse-Lautrec and Mucha, it portrays the geographic Paris; the streets accessible only by staircases, the unpleasant end of fleeting popularity, and the sexual opportunism of men with a product to sell, in an uncompromising picture of show business that is in stark contrast with the picture painted by Hollywood. There is an obvious comparison to be made with Lloyd Bacon's "42nd Street," which had been made about 20 years before, featuring Ruby Keeler as a dancing sensation, a fresh-faced kid from the sticks who had come to New York to get into show business, who saves the show when the star fails--"You're going out there a kid from the chorus, but you've got to come back a STAR!!" Warner Baxter's "Julian Marsh" is a director who suffers for his art and is unappreciated. Jean Gabin's "Danglard" keeps running afoul of genital politics, but when he talks about the show he is more like Knute Rockne than like Julian Marsh. He's all about the game, except--for his pointy thing. He has a profitable new venture sewed up until his mistress become jealous of the woman whom she recognizes as his next mistress. His prospects rise and fall with every coital journey he takes.

Danglard takes Mistress 1 (Lola de Castro, played by Maria Felix) slumming to a dive, where he sees "Nini," (Françoise Arnoul) with her boyfriend and first lover, Paulo the baker, and discovers that she is a spirited dancer. He uses his charm and the prospect of money to lure Nini to studying dancing so that she may go on the stage. The prospect of money and fame charms Nini, and she become Danglard's next mistress, as well as an apt student of the cancan, which Danglard has dubbed "French Cancan," to cater to the current Anglophile tendency in the dance.

Both "42nd St" and "French Cancan" are tributes to show business--to modern entertainment--that has is own iconography and its own conceit. "42nd St." is centered around Julian Marsh, a great director of Broadway shows, which he organizes with great personal energy and dubious sexual involvement. The male juvenile is a middle-aged twit with lumbago, replaced by Dick Powell, the pretty tenor with secret wealth to hide. Danglard, on the other hand, goes from woman to woman, seducing them with the promise of fame, hooking them with what must have been a very persuasive endowment. One has no doubt that he is heterosexual and quite active. Postcoital scenes abound.

Days after seducing Nini away from Paulo, he has discovered Esther, a Piaf type, and begun to prepare her for her job of singing the film's theme song while he plays it on her fiddle. That of course arouses Nini's jealousy just as she has aroused the jealousy of Lola. (And of course Nini had already forsworn the privilege of being a Czarina!) The whole movie is about how Danglard's concupiscence has cost him money but how even his troublesome horniness is subordinate to his love for the show--how the audience demands devotion--and it is this potent combination of phallic persuasion and tempting fame that makes Danglard the hero, while asserting that a true lover of the show will never profit as much as the money men. At the movie's conclusion, Danglard, having outfoxed the creditors and the jealous babes, approaches a new attraction watching the incredible (and believe me, it IS incredible) performance of the cancan. "Have you ever thought about being on the stage?" he asks, and the curtain descends. Meanwhile, poor Julian is sitting of the fire escape of the theatre listening to Peggy Sawyer's new fans disparage his contribution to the show's success. (I won't even go into "42nd Street"'s central line, "Oh, Guy, it was GRAND of you to COME!")

Furthermore, I won't go into the glimpse one gets of legendary Parisian entertainers, including a brief vision of Piaf, nor of the vision of a Paris both urban and rural. Certainly there is a sample of the styles that engendered Trenet and Aznavour. But it is the memoir of an assertive and welcome masculinity, something unseen in any Hollywood musical with which it might be compared, is a pleasant relief from the androgynes of 30's Hollywood musicals (including my beloved Fred Astaire, not to mention Dick Powell), let alone the barf promulgated by MGM in movies like the repulsive "American in Paris." All those fountains! We'll save our comparison of that turkey to "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and its deconstruction of the American male for another day.

That Danglard may have been a hopeful vision, in postwar France, of a kind of hyper-masculine mec that may or may not have ever existed, is practically beside the point. That he is a man's man, neither John Wayne nor Edward Everett Horton, is perhaps more on target. That he is a man who likes the ladies is never in question. I, for one, wouldn't mind living his life at all. I wonder if Gabin was that lucky.

At the beginning of this comment I wanted to talk about Baz Luhrman and what Sinclair Lewis called "boloney". I never got that far. Baz's Moulin Rouge... well, Paris doesn't put that kind of stuff in the Seine anymore.


I just viewed Jean Renoir's wonderful film, French Can Can. It is a visual delight and a great entertainment. The recently produced Moulin Rouge pales by comparison. I didn't quite get all of the praise that the recent movie received. Now I'm convinced more than ever, that my appraisal was correct after seeing a master film maker like Jean Renoir's version of the same story. He succeeded in getting great performances out of his entire cast, and the great French actor, Jean Gabin was in rare form. The dance sequence near the end was one of the most exciting one I'd ever seen. It was long, but I didn't want it to end. This film deserves to receive more recognition than it's got.


This was a pleasant musical about the creation of the Moulin Rouge dance hall. In many ways, this reminds me of the Hollywood musicals of the 40s and 50s, in that it has many clichés leading up to the inevitable conclusion ("will the show STILL go on?"). While of course none of this is new, it was enjoyable and well made. The musical numbers at the end are frenetic and beautiful to watch. In many ways it reminds me of a sexier version of THE GREAT ZIEGFELD. In real life, Ziegfeld was quite the player but this was sanitized in the American film. But, in FRENCH CANCAN, the characters have fully functioning libidos--but nothing is really shown, so the movie is okay for kids.

Nothing new but well done nevertheless.


Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by Édith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.

Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.

Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.


As a longtime admirer of the 2001 film "Moulin Rouge" and a more recent admirer of Jean Renoir's film-making, I knew that I'd inevitably watch his "French Cancan" sooner or later. The movie tells a fictionalized story of the opening of the Moulin Rouge nightclub. The impresario Danglard (Jean Gabin) tries to turn Montmartre laundress Nini (Françoise Arnoul) into a cancan star, without arousing the wrath of his tempestuous mistress, the belly-dancing Lola (Maria Felix). This is just one of several love triangles in "French Cancan"--true to stereotype, these French showbiz folk are always falling in love.

Renoir directs with his typical gentle humor and attention to supporting characters, and also wrote the lyrics to a beautiful waltz song prominently featured in the movie. Gabin perfectly incarnates the aging French playboy hero. Arnoul is a cute redhead who holds her own in the dance numbers, except for a few trick shots where a double is obviously used.

"French Cancan" is billed as a musical comedy and while there are lots of musical numbers that take place on the nightclub stage, etc., only one character, Casimir, ever breaks into song in the middle of conversation. The actor who plays him, Philippe Clay, is fun to watch--a really tall, skinny young man who sings, dances, and does contortions.

The movie ends with a long cancan sequence, as all the characters learn to triumph over their problems and make art together. The dancing is much more brightly lit and coherently edited than in "Moulin Rouge"; in fact, if I have one complaint about "French Cancan," it's that the whole thing is a little too Technicolor. Even when Nini experiences heartbreak or someone sings a melancholy song, the lighting is bright and flat, no shadows intruding. Yes, the result is a cheerful and warmhearted musical comedy; it's just that I can't help thinking that things weren't ever this colorful and innocent in real life.


I am not a fan of musicals, but I am a huge fan of Jean Renoir and Jean Gabin. I rented this movie on a whim and was pleasantly surprised even expecting greatness from the classic director. This movie is BEAUTIFUL. The shots are like oil paintings with motion, something a lot of directors strive for but Renoir MASTERS. I cannot express how much this movie transcends itself... it's not really a musical, it just has a couple of well-placed musical numbers and a grand dancing finale. But there is something about this movie in particular which makes you feel absolute JOY when watching it.

I am a fan of foreign art films, but I'm also a meathead who loves things like Die Hard and Schwarzenegger movies. I get very easily turned off by things that are overly happy or in "la la land," but this movie has an overwhelming positive energy that is just irresistible -- not to mention every frame is gorgeous and the plot is good. 10 out of 10.


In 1942, in Warsaw, a Polish prostitute is murdered in a sadistic way. Major Grau (Omar Sharif), a man from German Intelligence that believes in justice, is in charge of the investigation. An eyewitness saw a German general leaving the building after a scream of the victim. A further investigation shows that three generals do not have any alibi for that night: General Tanz (Peter O'Toole), Maj. Gen. Klus Kahlenberge (Donald Pleasance) and General von Seidlitz-Gabler (Charles Gray). They three avoid a direct contact with Major Grau and become potential suspects. As far as Major Grau gets close to them, he is promoted and sent to Paris.

In 1944, in Paris, this quartet is reunited and Major Grau continues his investigation. Meanwhile, a plan for killing Hitler is plotted by his high command; a romance between Ulrike von Seydlitz-Gabler (Joanna Pettet) and Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann (Tom Courtenay) is happening and Insp. Morand (Phillipe Noiret) is helping Major Grau in his investigation.

The story ends in 1965, in Hamburg, with another similar crime.

The first time I watched this film, I was a teenager and I recall that I left the movie theater very impressed. Two days ago, a friend of mine saw this movie again and sent me an e-mail. I decided to watch it again, on VHS, since it has not been released on DVD in Brazil. This movie is really an excellent and very underrated European super production, having a spectacular international cast. Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif, from `Lawrence of Arabia', have another outstanding performance working together, highlighting the role of Peter O'Toole as a deranged man. It is amazing how Omar Sharif was a great actor in the 1960's. The story has war, mystery, crime, romance, drama and thriller, in right doses. Further, the character of Omar Sharif, as an ethic man who believes and pursues justice, no matter the price, is exciting. The reconstitution of the period is also fantastic, specially the scene of the madness of General Tanz in a block of Warsaw, when he burns and destroys many buildings. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `A Noite Dos Generais' (`The Night of the Generals')


An overlooked little gem that gets better with each viewing. Murder mystery set in the German Army during World War II, involving 3 generals who are suspects. Entire cast in good form; fine ensemble acting. Peter O'Toole in top form as a fanatical SS general suspected in the murders. Donald Pleasence and Charles Gray portray the other 2 generals with secrets to hide. Omar Sharif does an excellent job as the Army colonel investigating. Film set in both 1942 occupied Poland, and 1944 occupied Paris. Also neatly ties in the July, 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler, with a cameo appearance by Christopher Plummer as Field Marshal Rommel. Recreates the actual bombing of Hitler's headquarters, and the efforts by the Paris generals to unseat the SS and Gestapo. Highly recommended viewing.


Omar Sharif is excellent in this film. The fact is that the film needs to be restored to its widescreen version and released on DVD.

The acting is fantastic throughout and the locations are perfect.

The point I wanted also to make is that, unlike your "factual errors" there were in fact several Regular German Army units and soldiers who were later brought into the Waffen SS. Several of the foreign volunteer units were brought into the SS as well.

There were foreign volunteer units that were in the Leningrad area in 1941-42 and later became Waffen SS in whole or in part.

The movie does a great job of making almost perfect copies of German material and when it gets to France even has a shot of tanks made up to look very much like Panthers, in addition to the many kubelwagons and schwimwaggons.

Grau is one of the best characters in cinema and he should have had more screen time. A great film! A great indictment of the Nazis.


I agree with the above general sentiment that the story strays a bit too much at times, especially with the rather useless bombing of Hitler as a detour. I do however understand why it's there - it's because by attaching the "good" German generals to the plot of killing Hitler, they let the audience not feel bad for rooting for them. Simple trick, but all in all detrimental to the momentum of the story.

The film is brimming with exceptional acting - O'Toole turns in a particularly vicious and strong performance as General Tanz, but everyone holds their own. It's rare to find a villain so distasteful and yet so intriguing - most filmmakers just content themselves with giving the villain an evil shtick without much character development - not so here.

I saw a newly mastered DVD in full 2.35:1 widescreen presentation and the the cinematography by the late Henri Decae is wonderful in all its glory.

Very interesting movie, please see it.


Wartime Europe - Warsaw 1942: A Polish man visiting the communal toilet in his tenement block hears the screams of a local prostitute being killed in the flat above. A few minutes later he hears footsteps coming down the stairs and he peers through the crack in the lavatory door and is shocked to see the uniform of a German general coming down the stairs. He reports the murder to the authorities and the investigating officer Major Grau believes him and establishes that only 3 of the German generals in Warsaw were without alibi on that night - Generals Tanz, Kahlenberge and Gabler. He begins his investigation but just as he is getting close to the truth, he is transferred to Paris by higher authority. Two years later in July 1944, another prostitute is murdered and Major Grau establishes that once again all 3 generals - Tanz, Kahlenberge and Gabler are all in Paris on the night of the murder. The hunt for the killer is on.....

An excellent murder mystery full of intrigue and suspense set against the background of wartime Europe, The Night Of The Generals is one of few movies incorporating historical fact with fiction and succeeding admirably. As well as the fictional murder storyline, readers will be treated to the cleansing of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto (1942) and the infamous July bomb plot to kill Hitler (1944) which are both incorporated into the story. Anyone who likes war or murder mystery movies will not be disappointed by The Night Of The Generals.


Well, if nothing else, we can agree that they don't make 'em like this any more. A cast of super-prestigious actors, including a reunion of Peter O'Toole and Omar Sharif from Lawrence of Arabia, is employed in a huge, unwieldy Euro-pudding of a production about Nazis, murderers and a Nazi murderer.

This isn't an easy movie to summarize, since there are at least three major plot-lines going on at the same time. In one, someone is killing prostitutes in occupied Warsaw and Paris, and Omar thinks the murderer is one of three leading Wehrmacht generals. In the second plot, various high-ranking officers are conspiring to overthrow Hitler and bring the war to an end. And in a third plot, Tom Courtenay's corporal is getting very close to the daughter of Charles Gray's untrustworthy General Gabler.

All three plots intersect, sort of, but I can't help wishing that someone had made up their mind just what sort of movie they wanted to make and stuck with it, rather than trying to make three at once. Courtenay's romantic sub-plot is entirely redundant, and should have been cut out completely, thus shortening the movie to a manageable two hours or so. And was there really any need for Christopher Plummer to saunter on in a minuscule cameo as Rommel? His appearance adds nothing to the story, and the only reason for him being here at all was presumably in order to employ every great British actor alive at the time. I'm only surprised that Laurence Olivier didn't turn up as Goebbels, or Himmler or someone.

And yet, despite the bloat, despite the stunt casting, despite the fact that Philippe Noiret is more wooden than the Black Forest, it works. I watched it for two and a half hours without getting bored, and I loved a lot of things about it - the characters interact beautifully, the tension in the conspiracy sequences builds up to near-unbearable levels, and the look of the thing is sumptuous in the extreme. You really feel you're there with these people, and you can't help but care about them and how the story comes out. In the end, that's what movies are supposed to do, isn't it? Night of the Generals is a long way from perfect, but it just about forced me to like it.


I saw this movie in the year of its release. I have always been a great fan of Peter O'Toole and his performance in The Night of The Generals, as General Tanz is amazing.

There are no weak performances in this film and I consider the story line to be sound throughout. The plot against Hitler's life - which is a well known historical fact, in no way detracts from the murder mystery at hand.

The musical score associated with the film, composed by Maurice Jarre, is stirring and memorable. After more that 30 years, I still remember the haunting musical theme very clearly.

The Night of the Generals is a terrific murder mystery. I hope that I will have an opportunity to view this picture again in the future. Sadly, it appears that it is now difficult to find.


One night when you have time on your hand for an interesting 'Who-done-it' set during a war, this is your film. It is a story with-in a story. The plot begins in war torn Europe, Poland, to be exact. The Warsaw night is laden with black smoke from the on-going destruction by the German Army. Somewhere, in the 'red-light' district, a high shrill and fatal scream rips the air as a woman is being savagely butchered. A Polish eye witness to the murder puts in an anonymous call to the police who in turn summon the German occupational police. The authorities send a dedicated, tenacious and zealous Intelligence Officer, Major Grau (Omar Sharif) to investigate. What he discovers is, whoever murdered the woman was not only a sex crazed lunatic, but a maniacal sword swinging maniac too. That's when it gets additionally dramatic, the eye-witness said the murderer wore a German Officer's uniform, . . with a red stripe. Only German generals wear the red stripe. Peter O'Toole plays General Tanz, a highly decorated and meticulous officer of the Waffen SS tank Corps and a favorite of Adolf Hitler. Donald Pleasence is Maj. Gen. Kahlenberg, a distinguished general who disappears from time to time and is an aid to the last general, General Von Seidlitz-Gabler (Charles Grey) who likes women and is a 'bit of a voyeur.' The only thing which ties them together is Lance Cpl. Kurt Hartmann (Tom Courtenay) a German witness. Philippe Noiret is great as Inspector Morand who's friendship with Major Grau extends beyond the war. They believe, any day is a good day to catch a murderer. Even a day when the whole world is falling down around them. An excellent film with which to slay a somber afternoon. ****


This is one of the best pieces of TV drama i've seen, this I'm sorry to say is better then any previous Marple or recent Agatha Christie dramatisation I've seen. As good as any Joan Hickson dramatisation. Utterly fantastic sit back and enjoy, and all those who keep comparing Geraldine to Joan Don't WATCH buy her DVD series watch that and leave us to watch the new versions without criticisms they're superb. Its great that they're doing new things with the plots WE all know the books so something different is great! The book was of course adapted to accommodate Miss Marple and the writer did an incredible job, Miss Marple is given enough of a character and personality and role for it to have been written as a Miss Marple book. The performances of Jane Seymour and Dennis Lawson were fantastic in particular, cameos from Pippa Heywood and Camille Coduri were of course welcomed. All but cynical Chrsitie purists couldn't help but enjoy this whodunit meant as Christie's characters should have been bold and larger then life. Pour a large G and T sit back and enjoy..... I did :-)


most replies r negative to my surprise ,i waned to read them to know if other viewers enjoyed it as i did , i think it was good i will report a quick summery to any of u who is about to watch

ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE

of coarse everyone knows its written by Agatha Cristie the great novelist, the plot starts by an old friend of miss marple writing her a letter asking her to come pay a visit coz she's to be married to a gentleman who have 5 kids

after miss marple arrives & is introduced to the 5 young people she learns they are all came from foster homes , & that their belated mother was a very rich lady killed 2 yrs ago

on a quick flash backs the director shows us one where the mother had a big fight concerning money borrowing from her eldest adopted son jacko that she turns down & he end up telling her that he wish her dead & he leaves the house. 2 hours later the mother is brutally dead & of coarse the young man is convicted & sent to prison for trial

all along he keeps sayin he had an alibi by a scientist doctor who gave him a lift by his car that particular night

but that witness was no where to be found & after a while the son was hanged the flash backs are over

back to reality where miss marple & the family of 5 children , their father & his fiancée ( miss marple's friend ) are happily spending the evening doing sharades & hanging around so Merrily

when a scientist doctor spots an old newspaper & reads that a young man was hanged due to killing his mom 2 years ago he comes in a rainy night to this family's night to reveal a dark secret

appearing like a ghost out of the windows where they all gathered & telling them that their long dead brother was with him around 8,30 which is the same time of the murder of their dead mother taking place , so there is no way he was the murderer & they all discover that if their dead brother isn't the one , so it's one of them

& the mystery goes on & on & gets more thrilling & full of surprises i love reading , i would support novels brought to movies , novels are harder than a 90 minutes screen adapted novel to some people ,though novels are more deep full of details & depth that no way a movie can deliver

but on the other hand a movie is easier to understand for young people, easier to watch especially for a whole new generation of Agatha Cristie's young fans

back to the movie ... i think it's done very well , miss Geraldine's acting is always awesome i love the way she does it .. the acting , her custom's ,the way she always repeat the word '' dear'' in many lines in the script makes u feel like she 's ur own granny lol

the casting of the family was wonderful & very suitable , the 2 sisters Kirsten & Hester are wonderful actors especially the younger one kirsten , she is a very sensible actress , the brothers jacko ( the thought to be murderer of his mother is wonderful ), the other brothers were so right in their own places , the lake where a suicide takes place was original ,the house & the stormy weather helped much in the belief of the realism

i don't think the movie is crap on the contrary i think if u r free for the weekend & it's on TV try catchin it or rent it if available , u'll enjoy


This South Korean thriller undoubtedly belongs to the most impressive genre films of the last years and stands in one line with classics like "Seven" or "The Silence of the Lambs". In a way, it even tops both American movies, even though it's not really comparable to them, because the story goes in another direction as the movie proceeds.

"Tell Me Something" starts of as a serial killer thriller clearly influenced by "Seven", but it becomes much more Giallo-like in the second half to become some valid social comment with its downbeat climax.

The acting is also remarkable, just as the sublime black humor that surfaces once in a while and the outrageously gory moments that will leave You gasping for breath even if You've seen many gorefests before. The last point is particularly interesting considering that the film never tries to outdo some notorious Italian horror movie of the early 1980s or Category-III-romp from Hongkong's 1990s.

The diversity of interesting aspects make this top-notch thriller interesting for hard core horror buffs as well as moviegoers that normally don't pay for such violent movies. Astonishingly as it may sound, it's a very sensible movie in a way. Nevertheless, it surely is nothing for the easily offended or faint hearted. It's just demanding cinema which makes no compromises, which most really good films are.

Highly recommended.


In Seoul, parts not matching of severed copses of three men are found in cars and bags left in public spaces. Detective Cho (Suk-Kyu Han), who is under investigation of the Internal Affairs, is assigned to lead the investigation with his team. When the identities of the men are discovered, the police finds that the artist Su-Yeon Chae (Eun-ha Shim), who lives with her friend Seungmin Oh (Jung-ah Yum), had been lover of the men. Detective Cho and his force protect Su-Yeon and follows the leads based one the information she tells, while the killer executes other victims. However, Cho discloses very dark secrets in the end, finding the real motives of the murderer.

"Telmisseomding" is a stylish and gore South Korean thriller, with a magnificent cinematography, camera and acting, and an awesome music score. Unfortunately the director and the screenplay writer have not succeeded and the story is totally confused mainly after the last twist. I have my interpretation but some points are missing or does not make sense, and I did not understand the bond between Su-Yeon and Seungmin (the homosexual love between them is subtle and not clear whether it is corresponded or not) and who is the killer indeed. It seems that Su-Yeon has actually killed her lovers based on her sexual trauma with her obsessive father, but if this premise is correct, why Seungmin had the aggressive attitude when the detectives arrive in the hospital? Or maybe both girls were the killers and Su-Yeon wanted to blame Seungmin and plotted the whole situation in the Tower Records. Therefore, the story is flawed and not clear. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Partes de um Segredo" ("Parts of a Secret")


I had been working on a fairly in depth discussion of this film to post on the IMDB, but I decided to just shorten my lengthy diatribe to one word: RUN!

I don't want to give away ANY of the plot, because the less you know the better. And all you need to know is that this is the BEST serial thriller to come along since The Silence of the Lambs...it's better than Seven, it's better than Copycat, and it's even better than The Crimson Rivers. In fact, I would rate this top notch film on the same level as Dario Argento's Deep Red and Tenebre...and for those of you fortunate enough to have seen those classic films..yes, it really is THAT good! Yet whereas acting and even the screenplay are secondary to classic Italian thrillers, this gem boasts an exquisitely constructed screenplay (the ending will surely take you by surprise!) and two outstanding lead performances by the commandingly handsome Suk-kyu Han and the breathtakingly beautiful Eun-ha Shim.

Sadly, Tell Me Something has yet to get a US release (outside of all too rare arthouse screenings from time to time), and after two years it remains unreleased on VHS or DVD. So I would HIGHLY recommend that you all purchase the code-free NTSC Hong Kong DVD. The A/V transfer is stunning, and the English subtitles get a surprisingly accurate translation.

I have no idea why none of the Hollywood studios have yet given this film a theatrical release, but like the equally brilliant Japanese horror film RING, I'm guessing it's because they are first planning an American remake...so before that dark day comes, experience for yourself the film that I consider the Best Movie of 1999 (besting even The Matrix), and one of the Top 5 Horror/Thrillers of the decade!

My Grade: A+


Begins in tremendous style and is very watchable throughout although one does begin to worry about a certain lack of clarity. I think the film is longer than it need be and is ultimately unable to deal with the deeper issues it alludes to. A tighter film would have meant we were on the edge of our seats throughout and, possibly more importantly, forced the director (or writer) to get what they wanted to say more simply expressed. Many have suggested there may be something, lost in translation and that is a fair point but my own feeling is that the film makers simply overstretched themselves a little. Having said all that it's a very decent film with plenty of blood, gore and surprises, plus its always good to look at.


Black plastic bags of human body parts swimming in blood are found in various places in the city of Seoul in South Korea. Police investigates them and soon sees they belong to various victims and are "mixed" together in order to confuse the minds of those that are investigating. A mysteriously silent and beautiful female becomes number one lead for them and target of police investigation and questions and the more the film runs, the more we get closer to the truth and revealing the identity of the violent killer. Much more cannot be said about Korean film maker Yoon-Hyun Chang's disturbing serial killer thriller Tell Me Something (1999) without spoiling its many surprises and plot turns coming.

Unfortunately, this film, in my opinion, and after my first viewing, has more flaws and holes than real merits in it. First of all, it is sadly too long as it runs 117 minutes in NTSC speed. That would be okay if the film had very interesting, multi-leveled, characters in it that would make the whole ride much faster and more fluent to sit through, naturally. Now the characters don't develop too interestingly and also the film hasn't got any real message to deliver and thus is "only" a serial killer horror film, not much else. Many have compared this to the US film maker David Fincher's masterful tale of wickedness living inside ourselves and our society, Seven (1995), but that film is not only visually much more stunning and brilliant than Tell Me Something but also has its message and themes to make the whole piece much bigger and more noteworthy. I felt very bored during many scenes of this Korean film as they don't give anything to the film as a whole. They should have shortened the film by some 30 minutes without harming the end result.

The typical "traumatic childhood thing" feels also pretty stupid and like it was just fastly written to give some kind of a motivation for the killer's act. Traumatic childhood and horrors related to it is a very serious subject matter in cinema and in a film like this, it feels a little unnecessary and also even repellent. If they had given a more interesting and different explanation for the killer's acts, it would be more interesting to watch even in this too long form.

The positive things are also there, fortunately, and especially the few shock scenes (like the head on the seat of the car) are truly effective and done with great fast editing and merciless elements on the soundtrack. Worth mentioning is also the "kubrickesque" elevator scene that has a remarkably effective soundtrack behind it and making it stronger. The silent scenes and especially the face expressions and eyes of the female lead are also very impressive and once again show how much more powerful cinema can be without words, silently. Also the scene inside some industrial building (followed by a brutal murder) is effective and uses the daytime setting, empty room and distant sounds in the sountrack very effectively and gives also a strong feel of loneliness in such a big city. If they only had wanted to give us more than just murder mystery with this film of their's..

The graphic horror elements are very strong in this film, and the nastiness of them even surprised me. The film opens with a grisly depiction of dissection and nauseatingly realistic body parts and blood, which are shown for several seconds in close ups without any other reason. Similar scenes follow and the film also includes one of the nastiest highway multi car accidents I've ever seen, and that is definitely an unusually horrific scene! Also, equally sudden and nasty is the elevator scene and these scenes involving bags full of body parts are as graphic and slippery as they just can be so the film makers seemingly wanted to deliver plenty of gore with this film. It all comes also a little gratuitous as sometimes the real suspense and other more noteworthy horror elements suffer and leave on the background due to these easier scenes. The film includes also one brutal killing that definitely belongs to the mentioned category of being noticably calculated. The scene is distantly close to the "impalement killing" in Japanese Toshihara Ikeda's disturbing masterpiece Evil Dead Trap (1988), a film that has wonderful soundtrack and equally wonderful (and gruesome) surreal imagery and terror atmosphere and on any level greater film than Tell Me Something.

Tell Me Something has potential but doesn't use it as near as completely as would have been preferred. It will probably please most "slasher and horror fans" that like their films bloody and mysterious, but if you're looking for a more intelligent and effective (both mentally and physically) piece, then it will probably come as a more or less slight disappointment as it came to me. Still, due to its few merits and overall Eastern status (meaning there are NOT any stupid lightening "entertainment" elements usually found in, for example, modern Hollywood horror films) make this to 4/10 category. And with capital G I would add.


After seeing all the reviews, I must say that my opinion is mixed. On the one hand, the plot and concept of the movie are very interesting and surprising. On the other hand, the form and style of this movie are blurry and slow/repetitive at certain moments. It is true that this movie needs to been seen at least twice to fully appreciate its intricacies. It's a family thing and somehow it is a combination of Miikie Takashi's Visitor Q, Seven and Silence of the Lambs.

Overall, I would say 7/10.

I would recommend Frailty (2001) from Bill Paxton to people who like this plot.


I gave this film an 8 out of 10. It was hard to give an Asian suspense film less than a 9, but this film has a few holes. While the acting is superb and the atmospheric scenery is only rivaled by the American film Seven, it's plot falls weak towards the end. It all comes together and makes sense at the end, but there is something disturbing about it. We know there are atleast 2 killers for shear continuity reasons. Because Detective Oh (Yes that is his name), dies while the main villain is in the custody of the lead detective. (Side note, not to sound stereotypical, I admire the Asian community a great deal, but that is the only problem I have with watching Asian film. The names do not stick out because they are all almost the same. With the exception of Detective Oh. So my appologies on not naming anyone other than Detective Oh.) Anyway, what we do not know is why in the hell she wanted to attack the lead villain in Tower Records. We do not know why the family back story turns into a big mess at the end. We do not know why the lead killer would leave evidence of a drastic nature behind. Nor do we know why that eerie painting did not raise the attention of the police when the knew good and well a head would turn up next. I don't know, maybe the subtitles we not translated well enough. Maybe if I knew Korean I would understand the film better. Maybe if I saw the film outside the US it would have had scenes that America did not show. What I do know: This is a great cinematic achievement both visually and acted. The film has some great special effects, such as what I am sure is real animals blood. You see Eastern film is so uncompromising because they do not have to deal with a disturbingly PC Hollywood community. Anyway the only flaws may lie in the American cut, so I cannot go below an 8. I believe the film made since in Korea. If anyone knows where I can get a subtitled Director's Cut of this film please let me know. It breaks my heart to give this film less than a 9.