This gem of a TV movie has the Boris Karloff stamp all over it and together with usual atmospheric lighting and production bestowed upon a British TV thriller it makes for compelling viewing. It is nice to see that after a long and successful film career in the US that Mr Karloff decided to return to the land of his birth and make not only this film, but also others like 'Curse Of The Crimson Altar' which were shown on the big screen in the late Sixties and which are now shown regularly in Britain on television.

His performance in 'The Veil' is up to his usual standard. What is particularly interesting is the many characters he plays in this film. He tackles them all - the weird, the wise and the perfectly normal. Robert Hardy too should get a mention for an early performance which showed the promise of what was to come in British television. By the way the year is either 1963 or 1964. I used to know but cannot be sure, now.


This was a 1958 TV Series which I seemed to have missed and I must say the so-called Five(5) Spine Tingling Episodes: "Vision of Crime", "Girl On the Road","Jack The Ripper", "Summer Heat",'and" Return of Madam" were big disappointments. In some of these Episodes, Boris Karloff gives some minor performances which definitely spark your interest by his facial expressions and faces of evil which he so greatly performed for many many years. It is quite clear that having Karloff hosts these brief stories, it caused people to take an interest in viewing them on TV. In one of the stories, George Hamilton was very young and had a very brief role to perform. This is still a Classic film made in 1958 and ten years later, Boris Karloff passed away to the Higher Stage in the real Spiritual World.


Stylish and compelling mystery thriller along the lines of the CRIMSON RIVERS series, staring the consistently likable Jean Reno as a retired detective recruited back to assist a young Captain who is investigating a series of cruel murders of female Turkish immigrants which are suspected to involve a cadre of Turkish terrorists known as the Gray Wolves; meanwhile Arty Jover very well portrays a young amnesiac woman married to another police investigator who learns disturbing truths about her past  with both stories eventually merging in a thrilling climax that works despite some inherent preposterousness. Film is very well directed by Chris Nahon who lends a great deal of visual stylization to the storytelling; the storyline is somewhat convoluted but nonetheless becomes quite engrossing that the film works as an interesting and entertaining thriller, enhanced by impressive effects and an atmospheric musical sound design (five composers are credited). A winning example of style over substance, film is very enjoyable for the undiscriminating.


Another great action/thriller from France. A little bit Bourne Identity, a little bit Carlitos Way, dash Lethal Weapon "bad&good" cop attitude, a glimpse of From Dusk Till Dawn and Silence of the Lambs and you have a pretty entertaining 128 min at your local cinema (or on DVD). If you liked some past french productions like Crimson Rivers or Brotherhood of the Wolf you won't be disappointed. The action scenes are not perfect, they need a little bit polishing but at the end it's solid cine experience with interesting story. The script is tight, maybe one twist too much at the end but hey, it's worth and you should follow it without any difficulties. Again, it's not perfect, but solid 8/10.


This movie came as a surprise, I never expected such a fast paced action movie produced in France. The ambiance is excellent, the story is a bit hard to follow and I'm afraid not at all well put together. But never the less it's a nice piece of work for the positive points, in terms of quality, aside from the storyline, some thriller-like scenes are too exaggerated (almost like a bad horror movie), the same exaggeration happens with some action scenes also.

Overall this movie is a must for action movie and thriller fans but be prepared to need a bit of attention to follow a averagely accomplished script.


I keep finding myself liking French action movies more than Hollywood films. Not that I hate Hollywood action films. This particular movie is good at one thing. Escapism. Pure escapism. The plot is so so, but the movie is such that almost 2 hours go by and I've hardly noticed.

This movie is much better than The Crimson Rivers 2. Although I love the character in that movie. Jean Reno's beard in this one is a lil off putting. But still great acting nonetheless. Empire of the Wolves (as is the name on the disk.. if you entered that in search in IMDb you'd come up empty handed. ) has great similarities to the first Crimson Rivers. Although there, the camera work was so superiour that there's no comparison. Crimson Rivers 2 is not based on a novel of the first movie. This one is. The score is pretty good. And the female lead did a darn good job with what she was given. I'm not entirely sure why some didn't like the movie, maybe they were expecting Delicatessen or some masterpiece. But hey, up against most of the Hollywood fare, this one trounces them.

7/10

Quality: 4/10 (confusing storyline) Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 10/10


First let's get a couple of things straight. This movie is dark, unsweetened European chocolate for the mind, pure and simple. It makes about as much sense as a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Or maybe the average John Woo movie. Which is to say, it only makes sense as entertainment--the purest form of escapist entertainment. Now that we have that out in the open ....

This lengthy film is handsomely mounted and well-executed. High production values in evidence throughout. It is well-written and well-acted. It is visually attractive and atmospheric. It is absorbing and there is not a dull moment in it.

The plot is a mix of serial killer movie, extreme political thriller, crazed Nazi doctor movie, secret "anti-terrorist" police movie, medical science fiction and old cop/young cop partner movie. But they mix all this stuff up together quite enjoyably. Like Jerry Bruckheimer, Tony Scott and John Woo films, it really shouldn't work, but it really does.

Reno is great as a dangerous, rather brutal and grizzled rogue cop gotten out of "retirement" by an obsessed young cop to solve a series of grisly murders. The actor playing the young cop acquits himself well. The cast of villains and victims is convincing and compelling. The dialogue is good quality and there are twists and turns aplenty. Keeps you guessing until the last scene.

We are taken on a wild and dark and violent ride through the grim underworld of human traffickers in the Turkish slums of Paris (at least I think it was Paris).

Anyway, whoever made this movie really set out to entertain an audience. I think they succeeded admirably.

Turn on the movie, turn off your mind and enjoy yourself.


Not a bad action/thriller.

A bit slow for a action movie, and not quite thrilling enough for a thriller. Still the action sequences were well done and some of the fighting sequences verged on excellent.

The story was slightly far fetched and tho the writers tried for twists it was really very straight forward.

Jean Reno was good as always and I thought Jocelyn Quivrin was excellent.

This movie was like a cross between "the borne identity", "seven" and 100 average cop movies.

Worth a watch id you like Jean Reno.


L'EMPIRE DES LOUPS is another intelligent, intense and very explosive thriller from the author Jean-Christophe Grangé who wrote also the first CRIMSON RIVERS. It kept me all the time guessing what came next and there were many puzzles to solve. Director Nahon made a great job and all the actors delivered a very solid performance. I hope there will be soon another one. I don't know why this movie is underrated on IMDb with actual 5.4 but I give with my wife a solid 7.5/10. If I compare the quality of this film with similar Hollywood thrillers then it's no doubt one of the best and a must see for all fans of this genre. I am a little disappointed why this excellent thriller didn't get enough attention at the theaters and even me discovered it accidentally in the film dates of Jean Reno.


I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I was slightly worried at first that subtitles were a bit ambitious for hungover Sunday viewing but it was fairly easy to keep up.

The two plot lines seem completely separate at first and they are nicely tied together later in the film. This works very well at giving two sides of an event without resorting to flashbacks or spoon-feeding the viewer.

You do have to think and pay attention to this film but it is not overly cryptic - I think I understood everything I needed to at the end. Some minor details might be a little blurry but these are not integral to the plot.

Some racial stereotypes aside this is a very well thought out and captivating film.


i really enjoyed the movie and i cant see why so many people didn't.

i found the direction amazing,and that combined with a great photography gave people really creepy scenes.(i went to see it expecting to be scared,and i left with the amount of fear needed in these films).

Though i must admit there were some scenes i could do without

i didn't enjoy reno as much as i expected,but i do believe he made a good performance.

the girl (anne) and the young cop really caught my attention,i was thrilled to see them perform,especially the girl was perfect for the part.

i do believe they made a very hasty end though,i wanted a bigger part of the movie to happen in Instanbul.

apart from that i believe its a very good movie the best part of it,has to be the atmosphere created,especially in the beginning

when the movie ended i had the same feeling i had with "bone collector" and "takin lives" (i adored both of them) i really think "the empire of the wolves" has the standards to compete with these two great movies

the political edge though makes the latter stand out in my opinion.

i also think that whoever enjoyed this one will love "Vidocq" and vice versa

summary-good points

great movie,nice performances-very good casting,excellent photography,AMAZING soundtrack,good thriller,beautiful locations

European cinema rocks once again


Well, I am certainly getting more and more impressed with the acting skills of Jean Reno, that's for sure! He shifts so easily between hero and villain. In this movie one never quite figured which one he was. At least I didn't. And the other actors, whom i am sad to say I don't know, did their part almost as good. All in all it was top notch acting all around, and that is seldom to see in an action/thriller. Usually it is the lead man or woman that carries the movie on his/her shoulder.

And the story went in so many different directions that I was kept on the tip of my toes for all of the movie.

The script was very tightly written, the pace never dulled, and the foreboding atmosphere brought forth by magnificent use of camera and lighting, went as a red thread through it all. It made me believe this was something it was not.

The reason I am giving Empire of The Wolves a strong 8, instead of a pure 10, is because of the scientific mumbo jumbo. It was the only part that seemed a little off. It was just a bit too much science fiction like. Now i love a good science fiction flick as much as the other guy, but it did not quite fit in here, i feel. They should have come up with something a bit more realistic. It isn't that easy to mess with memories.

And yes, i know that it probably were made that way on purpose, to throw the watcher off the scent, as was certain other unrealistic elements in the movie, that I won't go further into. But i feel they fit better with the mood of the movie.

Anyway, if you haven't seen Empire of The Wolves, do it as soon as you can. Because this is still a seriously well made movie. It is a shame it has such relatively low rating on the IMDb. It deserves better.

Paladin Steelbreaker


... are not enough to satisfy the/a sophisticated viewer! A movie that begins as fine as this, more in the vain of a thriller and clearly reminding people of films as "Fifth Element", and has horror elements woven into the plot, should deserve a better rating. I was amazed by the beginning and was really anxious to know what was happening. Throw in Jean Reno, always on top of his game and nothing can go wrong ... or can it?

Well it seems it can! And this movie is an example of why, you should know where you're heading as a director, making a movie. Also one of those movies who try to mix up genres just like that ... Doesn't work that easy though. And although the beginning was suspenseful and good, you will notice the point where the movie breaks ... where it won't only get ridiculous, but the movie also falls to pieces. And even the not badly photographed action sequences at the end can' save that, as well as Reno can't! The question that remains is, did the script writer(s) mess this up, or did the director go another way and made many script "corrections" (they've gone all wrong then)? I'll never know, but I also don't care!


I love Jean Reno. He just has that air about him that makes a great detective.

Here he plays a retired police detective that was drummed out under mysterious circumstances, or was he? He teams up with a Police Captain (Jocelyn Quivrin) to solve some mysterious gruesome murders in Paris.

In the meantime, some nefarious things are going on with the police and the military that involve a policeman's wife (Arly Jover).

Nothing is what it seems in this film. You are constantly surprised and reassessing who to cheer for. While things seem to tie together at the end, there are still questions.

Great direction by Chris Nahon, who did Kiss of the Dragon. Great cinematography and music, and great acting, especially by Jean reno.


I was pleasantly surprised by this film and have also wondered about the negative reviews. The movie has two problems 1) a problem of perception: it starts off looking like a fairly routine mystery / police procedural, but elements of other kinds of movies begin to trickle in as the plot reveals itself -- which may have confused some reviewers wanting a pure genre piece, 2) the plot IS a little hard to follow in places and depends on one important coincidence in particular. However, the overall story makes sense in a "gestalty" kind of way and I don't think it's a killer issue. Oh, and 3) the English dub (which I turned on a couple of times) should be confiscated and burned. It's a fairly good dub in syncing the lips, but the voicing is as inappropriate as any bad dub of a Japanese film. For Pete's sake, hire a mimic next time you dub an actor as well-known as Reno.

But I take real issue with the critics who labeled as "ridiculous" this or that aspect of the film. People have given high marks to James Bond films that stretched belief far more painfully. The real issue is that the French filmmakers aren't telegraphing the genre to the viewers. Good for them.

Offsetting any problems is the wonderfully mysterious setup that ends in a real surprise about 40 minutes into the picture. That's the point when the picture shifts gears and we start seeing the "action/adventure" film which is quite well done.


The French noticed that Jean Reno + interesting/shocking plot and lots of high budget action make money. The still hold on to the plot thing, but I think they are going in the same direction as Hollywood movies.

In this one you have army experiments, terrorism, violent police behaviour and corrupt police (always a success in France) mixed with fast paced action and plot twists. It's not that the movie is bad, it's that is not good that bothers me. OK, it was supposed to be an action thriller and in this direction it was not bad at all, but with a little more work, the idea of the movie could have been a lot more captivating.

Conclusion, the first hour of the movie is not as intense as the last. The film looses tension as it unravels and somewhere on the middle it gets boring as the investigative characters catch up with what is rather obvious to the viewers. The ending is not surprising, but satisfactory. As an action film is OK, but do search a good translation.


From the get-go, this film winds the viewer up in a double-helix plot line that takes no prisoners and leaves the faint-witted and slow-to-snap behind. This director understands layering -- a multiple-level approach to scene-building that juxtaposes high tech gadgetry like mind-probes and radioactive oxygen memory tracers and erasers with the gritty underbelly of Parisian catacombs. The seemingly innocuous beginning -- a woman with neurological problems - quickly develops triple layers of menace as her visions begin to intertwine with the horrible series of mutilation murders. The pace starts fast, stays that way, and this director is not afraid to give us a taste of anti-climax before sending us over the edge to the finale. A very slick, visually-stimulating thriller with a satisfying conclusion.


" Empire of the Wolves" is a smart and hip thriller with some supernatural elements. Two, at first glance, unconnected stories slowly, but surely merge and form the whole puzzle. What stands out in this movie is the rainy, drizzly cinematography.Gray, stifled light, lends an oppressive aura to the already deeply affected viewer. Paris in this story is not a city of love and romance. This Paris is a city of filth and rats, of human slavery and relentless violence. Maybe, not a great advertisement for expected tourists, but a welcome twist for movie lovers. All in all interesting and fresh movie, with spark of originality.


If there is a Hollywood blockbuster looming on the horizon, it is guaranteed there is an Asylum rip off already stocked at your local video store. Just look for any cover that hopes to ride the coattails of whatever is currently playing in theaters, and it is practically a given that the Asylum produced it. Not to say that this practice is necessarily a bad thing. Where would Fulci's Zombie have been if not for Romero's Dawn of the Dead? But it is the consistency and frequency that the Asylum cranks out these rip offs without any true artistry, integrity, or even any value for the genre. For example, if not for Jaws, Corman would have never produced Pirahna. But, whereas Pirahna was created as a fun, tongue in cheek, little thriller that knew to cleverly mock its source material all the while winking at the audience, the good folks at the Asylum only wish to cash in and worry about product quality later...much later. which brings us to King of the Lost World. Seeking inspiration from the dual sources of Doyle and Jackson, this film falls amazingly flat, real fast. Lacking any coherence, intelligence, and sophistication, the film plods along unveiling each special effect without anything really special. As for production value, the filmmakers really didn't care, since they were probably scouring the most recent issue of the Hollywood Reporter for their latest inspiration. Dull, cheap, and thoroughly boring, the only time this film attempts to wink at the audience is in the hopes that you'll come back for the Asylum's next feature.


Sci-Fi Channel's business model must have something going for it, since it's survived for years by broadcasting and sometimes even making these cheapie, careless fantasy rip-offs. How wrong can you go with one of the most proved premises of the 20th century: civilized people stranded in uncharted jungle where prehistoric creatures and savage tribesmen challenge their wits, their ingenuity & their very concept of civilization? "Lost World" answers that question with a bland script, weak acting, lame props & effects and characters dull enough to be animal feed--which many of them inevitably wind up as. An airliner crashes on the beach near the Amazon valley. The survivors--almost totally unhurt, at least at first--try to find the lost cockpit with its radio but soon encounter giant bugs, little dinosaurs and a single monster ape. Did I already use the term "rip-off?" A mysterious military officer (Boxleitner) with a pistol and a lunchbox is strangely uninterested in working with the others even though he appears to know much he isn't telling. The best feature, by far, is the presence of several female characters, mostly flight attendants & all clad in skirts & shorts that gradually get used up for bandages--the good ol' First Aid Striptease. If the women are rarely more than eye candy, the men are compelled to wrestle with the various technological & situational challenges that the storyline tosses at them--which they do less well than my friends & I did in first grade when we played in our backyards & argued about what was supposed to happen next. Factual mistakes & great leaps in scientific laws are presented so blandly that it's apparent even the cast & crew were bored. The props & effects in Sci-Fi Channel movies are usually somewhat erratic, but not here--they're just plain awful. The big ape is drawn so badly that he actually appears two-dimensional. A stunt man in an ape suit would have been better--yes, the cheap Toho monster movies of the 1960s have better effects than this CGI boo-boo. The best that can be said about this film, like most recent works of its genre, is that it's quite inoffensive except to the intelligence of its viewers and the memories of the artists & works it's plundering. The worst is that if it had dispensed with the wasted talents of star actors Boxleitner & Railsback (neither of whom has much of a role) and been made as a porno, it wouldn't have been any worse and might even have made more sense. Of course, it couldn't have been released to theaters or TV and therefore wouldn't have made as much money. And, after all, what is sci-fi fantasy really all about? Wait--don't answer that!


The film would have been good if they stuck with the castaways finding ways of surviving and beating the creatures they encounter and just generally showing brains but--Noooooo! A lot of squabbling by a group of in shape folks just off a beach and time to time I see Bruce Boxleiter (sp) who's barely unrecognizable in his constant sullenness. He looks like he's saying to us the audience: "Know it's a stupid movie, here for the money." I didn't even stay to see the end for two reasons--the giant ape print--Big King Kong rip-off clue from a mile off--and the utterly disgusting natives who crop up more and more. I had hoped they were a hallucination or popping in out of another dimension (that would've added a twist)--but no. I said "Time to go." and turned on Court TV.


What a dumb movie. The special effects were so horrible I started to think this was really just a 3rd grade class project. The creators decided to cast some moderately pretty women in this film to make up for the complete lack of acting, personality, or talent. I can only imagine the budget for this film being in the realm of some kid's allowance. An incredibly poorly-done "movie" based on an incredible story. If you don't have the budget or talent to do the original story justice, then hands off please. With series like Battlestar Galactica out there, I expect rental DVDs to be of at least decent quality. The giant ape was a joke, the scorpions were moronic, and those flying dragon things? Please. And how come the flight attendant mistook her own plane for a fighter jet?


Once again, SciFi Channel delivers a movie that in the trailers is billed as a monster movie. But when you watch it, "King of the Lost World" ends up being a ridiculous piece of excrement about a plane that crashes somewhere in the Amazon, and the people's attempts to get the plane in good working order again and head back home. Terrible. The teasers about giant flying reptiles are lame. You only see the pterodactyl-like creatures for about five minutes in the whole movie. You also see one scene of killer scorpions, and then some "King Kong" ripoff giant gorilla stops by at the end of the movie to stomp on everyone. They even rip off the fighter-plane scene from "King Kong," as five or sex jets inexplicably appear out of nowhere and shoot at the ape, then just as quickly disappear, never to be seen again. The remaining hour-and-fifty-minutes features people trying to get the plane to work and white folks dressed up as indigenous tribal people who want to use the castaways as sacrifices and try to engage the doomed flight's women in lesbo-erotic behavior. The ONE saving grace of this movie is that the pseudo-pterodactyls gang up on the pseudo-King Kong at the end. But this movie deserves lower than a 1. I can't give it anything lower in the vote window, but I can give it a 1/2 out of 10 here. Horrible, horrible movie.


Whether it is the incredibly low budget Lost rip-off, retarded script, or just incredibly low budget-ness itself, this movie will destroy braincells. See this and feel dumber. It's amazing.

I see these crappazz movies for Bruce Boxleitner. Well don't -- his role is pathetic and he dies anyways.

The "special effects" are unwatchable. Worse than Mortal Kombat Annhilation (I know, unheard of).

I am getting sick and tired of formula commodity movies whose pre-fabbed scripts are no different from commercials. This is one of those.


This is awful - plain and simple awful. The CGI is pathetic, maybe we've all been spoiled as of late with Peter Jacksons masterpieces and some of the ILM work in the Star Wars films, but this takes the doggy biscuit. A film like this lives or dies by its effects, and quite frankly this film is dead! Add that to some inept acting and direction and you have a turkey thats big enough to feed your whole family for Christmas and beyond. Save your money and go to see Kong. I'm not even getting into the nitty gritty of plots and characters because quite frankly this movie doesn't even deserve my time, effort or your money! Don't take my word for it - look at the naff picture of the gorilla on the box! It doesn't get any better I assure you!


OK, currently I'm living in China, and I bought what I thought was Jurrasic Park 4...which I didn't think there was. Well, there isn't...at least not yet, Steven Spielberg is about to produce it in 2009 or 2010. So when I put this DVD in, to my surprise, the only dinosaurs I saw was stolen stock footage from Jurrasic Park 3 which they continued to play over and over again but without any real relevance to the story/plot.

Now I noticed that the other comments on this page didn't mention anything about this stolen stock footage, so I guess I should feel lucky that the Chinese steal everything and sell it cheap too. Awesomely bad movie!


Yes, I think he did with his television show "Lost" on ABC. The similarities are endless and obvious. The only differences are the characters names and the monsters. But, the storyline is almost identical. People crash on an island after their planes explodes into two pieces. There are only a few survivors who are focused on. These characters eventually die one by one. The island is also inhabited by some other group of people whose ship crashes on the island. They are immediately seen as the enemy to our main characters too. It just goes to show nothing in Hollywood is new. An idea is recycled again,again and again. This movie sucked,"Lost" sucks and so did Sir Athur ConenDoyle's book. THE END!


Nothing about this movie is exciting or clear; not the scenes, the characters, the plot line even. There is no characterization, no buy in to the folks who are a part of the "lost world". I can enjoy most any movie but this was difficult to even look at for the duration. Even for fans of b-grade fantasies or science fiction this movie does not provide entertainment. It was difficult to understand who the characters were or what was transpiring. The acting was flat or actually nonexistent as really 'acting' per se was absent. Additionally the special effects were cheesy and limited to say the least, reminding me of 1950's Japanese horror flicks.


King of the Lost World starts as a plane crashes in a mysterious jungle, of those aboard Ed Malone (Jeff Denton) & John Roxton (Rhett Giles) take charge. The plane has been broken in half while crash landing & the end with the radio & black box in is somewhere deep in the jungle, a group decide to go look for it & try to radio for help. However they soon discover a jungle full of horrors including giant spiders, giant scorpions, flying dragons, a giant ape & a tribe of primitives...

Co-written & directed by Leigh Scott who also plays Dr. Armstrong in the it this is another terrible zero budget Asylum produced sci-fi flick that in this case is a complete rip-off of King Kong. The script by Scott, Carlos De Los Rios & David Michael Latt takes itself very seriously & moves along at a reasonable pace but the character's, dialogue & situations are terrible. This is a poorly thought out mess designed to cost as little as possible & to cash-in on the recent (at the time) King Kong remake. I don't know why what else to say about this, it's just both conceptually & technically awful. If a passenger plane crashes there would rescue planes & search parties there within hours, we do have things such as radars & tracking devices you know. What happens to the other plane crash survivors who stay behind on the beach & are then taken away by the tribe? Do yourself a favour & give this one a miss.

Director Scott turns in an average looking film that isn't much fun to watch. Then, of course, there are the special effects which are simply terrible. The big ape at the end looks awful & all the horrible CGI seems really blurred which makes it look worse, the special effects on the original 1933 version of King Kong are better & more convincing than this. There's nothing quite like bad CGI effects to take you out of a film & make it look cheap & nasty. We get some killer vines, a giant spider, several giant scorpions, a huge ape & some flying dragons all of which look pretty childish & unconvincing. There's no gore or violence in it worth mentioning.

With a budget less than $1,000,000 this has terrible special effects that are simply embarrassing to watch at times, the live action stuff is competent but forgettable & unimaginative. The acting sucks too, the always watchable Steve Railsback makes a small cameo appearance.

King of the Lost Island is a pretty terrible film as is the general opinion for which once I am in full agreement, definitely one to avoid.


Just like Asylum's version of War Of The Worlds, this film has the following characteristics:

- Poor acting - Bad effects - Continuity errors all over the place - A few 'glowing reviews' that cannot possibly be real - Timed to coincide with the release of a similar big-budget movie

After the first 20 minutes I had to stop watching it, else my foot would have gone through the screen.

It's not the few dollars that I paid to rent this rubbish, but the fact that I feel cheated once again.

Remember the name: 'Asylum' - the movie company to avoid.


This movie started out as something half exciting, but the other 80 minutes of the film was a complete waste. There was no story, nor connection in anything. What shook me the most was how a film made in 2005 could have so low special-effects. I mean, the spider, looked like a doll. Seriously, the movie Anaconda could be considered having better special-effects then this one. The tribe thing? Made no sense at all. The characters were terrible. The classic screaming and running were to me, just a laugh. Though if you're a huge fan of King Kong and monster movies from the 90's, it might be good. Also, it contains a short shot of nudity. Might be worth it for that. One mans opinion.


Emergency Landing, a film I saw under the title Robot Pilot, is essentially a romantic comedy disguised by a story of war production of planes, an invention of a new navigational remote control system, and foreign spies and intrigue. Forrest Tucker , a very young Forrest Tucker, plays Jerry Barton, a pilot trying to convince a big airplane producer to see his friend's navigational remote control system. The test fails and Barton goes home with Doc - only to soon both become "wardens" to the pretty daughter of the fly tycoon and his sister Aunt Maude - for their complicity in stealing gasoline. You get then a bunch of scenes of the two- Tucker and the spoiled brat Carol Hughes fighting against each other only to fall in love and the same for Maude and the inventive Doc. As far as romantic comedies made on the real cheap, you could do far worse. Director William "One Shot" Beaudine has some skill with the camera and all of the actors are engaging - something you seldom see in these kind of movies. Tucker is amiable if nothing else, Hughes does a believable job, Emmett Vogan plays his part as Doc with great gusto, and Evelyn Brent does the best job as Aunt Maude with great style and a wonderful sense of humour. Even the worst actor, Thornton Edwards playing Pedro - a Mexican stereotype that would have every civil liberties group out against you today, has moments that are funny. The real problem with this film is that is is advertising to be what it is obviously not - a spy thriller or war picture or science fiction film even. It really is nothing close to any of those things. It is a simple little comedy that is cheaply made and has some good scenes working with the materials at hand. I was entertained at the very least although I was expecting something else. A minor bonus: Midget extraordinare Billy Curtis makes a brief cameo as a hard-dealing, justice-giving judge of the West. Funny and cute!


There is little to recommend this. It's a silly tale of some people trying to develop a remote control plane to be used in war. Most of it is a meaningless romance where spoiled people are holed up in the desert. One is trying to teach the others a lesson. Some gasoline is stolen, some bad guys come to mess things up, but mostly not a thing happens. There is a lot of screaming and pratfalls. The main character is pretty tiresome. The joke goes on and on and on. The plane, which should be the star of the show, is practically non-existent. It would be interesting to see what technology there was at the time. I'm sure the truth of that question would be much more interesting than anything that happens in this film.


"Robot Pilot" starts out like it might be positioning itself as an espionage thriller, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your disposition), never even comes close. There are probably more comic elements present than might have been originally intended, so if you approach the flick as a romantic comedy, you might be more pleasantly surprised. Even so, you'll have to endure some pretty stiff acting from then newcomer Forrest Tucker in the lead role of Jerry Barton, a pilot who's half of a team that's developed a remote control device for guiding aircraft. The first attempt at showcasing the new technology for the Lambert Aircraft Company ends in a nosedive, so with Jerry and Doc Williams (Emmett Vogan) sent off packing, they arrive at their desert cabin to start all over again.

Most of the rest of the story consists of Barton teaching the women a lesson after catching them with some gasoline taken from a government fuel shed. Make that teaching Betty Lambert (Carol Hughes) a lesson, as her Aunt Maude (Evelyn Brent) eventually learns that Barton is in cahoots with Betty's father to take the wind out of her sails. Throughout the story, it appears that Aunt Maude is having the best time of it all, while casting a romantic eye in the direction of good old Doc.

The espionage angle is brought back to the forefront when a Lambert test bomber is hijacked by veteran character actor I. Stanford Jolley. That plane crashes, but it brings Jolley hobbling along until he arrives at Doc's remote cabin. Think about it for a moment, and I know these old films relied on this kind of coincidence, but how is it that Betty and Maude, and then Lambert employee Karl (Jolley), make their way clear across the country from 'back East', and wind up virtually within a mile or two of a remote cabin in a desert, which just happens to be where former Lambert employee Barton is holed up with his partner. Sort of defies all the laws of probability, yet it happens all the time in flicks of the era.

I guess that's why the presence of Billy Curtis in the finale is so surprising and bewildering. As the traveling midget circuit Judge, Curtis slaps the girls with a twenty dollar fine for 'stealing' twenty gallons of gasoline, prompting Aunt Maude to directly deadpan the camera - "Did you see what I saw?" I think it might have been just another way of asking the viewer what they thought of the picture.


"A test pilot and his weather observer partner are trying to develop a robot-controlled plane they hope their employer can sell to the army. Foreign agents learn of their work and sabotage the plane, hoping to stop the inventors and allowing the spies to steal the invention. Our inventors hope to thwart the plans of the spies and deliver the robot plane to the army, thus saving the country," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

After making an impression in 1940's popular "The Westerner", young Forrest Tucker (as Jerry Barton) is piloted into a starring programmer role. "Emergency Landing" (inappropriately re-titled "Robot Pilot") is an unimpressive vehicle for Mr. Tucker, who would find later success in television's "F Troop". Listen for an amusing exchange between leading lady Carol Hughes (as Betty Lambert) and aunt Evelyn Brent (as Maude Marshall): on their way to tinsel town, Ms. Brent wonders what she will do in Hollywood. Ms. Hughes replies, "Barrymore is single again." Brent appeared with John Barrymore in "Raffles" (1917) and "Night Club Scandal" (1937); indeed, he had just received his fourth divorce.


Primal Rage isn't anything special, some people would consider it really bad but it isn't all that bad. the acting isn't bad but the movie is a bit predictable, the story line is not very original but the movie is entertaining. If you see it in the video store and you can't really find anything else you want to watch Primal Rage is a good substatute. The last half and hour of the movie makes it all very worth while. I gave Primal Rage 7/10.


At first, I thought this was going to be another killer ape picture, instead it was an very cool knock-off of David Cronenberg's "Rabid", with awesome effects by Carlo Rambaldi. I thoroughly enjoyed watching these characters go berzerk to the music of Claudio Simonetti. The gore was plentiful and the ruckus at the Halloween dance was very exciting. It was also fun to watch one of Rob Lowe's brothers in yet another B horror picture. My only problem was the dated pop tunes that plagued the movie's soundtrack.


I've just seen "Bin ich schön?" today and I totally disagree with the other critic. I think this film is BEAUTIFUL (That's the better word to describe it) because it's made of small things and tries not to give a lesson or just entertain you for two hours, you will leave the cinema with your heart touched... No one had showed me Spain, the way Doris Dörrie did... Plain, simple and yet astonishing... Perhaps I understood her because I come from a country that lives of small rituals like Spain does. The music is also fantastic, like in every Dörrie film.


"Life according to Doris" might be an adequate alternative title to this film. Instead of telling a linear story with a showdown, Dörrie spotlights moments in people's life that tell everything about their past, their present and the world that surrounds them. The way she does it puts her in one line with Jim Jarmusch. As in most of her other films, it is what the characters say and do more than how it is filmed what makes the film. "Bin ich schön?" is the closest any of Dörries's films comes to her remarkable short stories.


This movie deserves a better review than the previous one by Melendez from Brazil. It is true that the plot is complex and not easy to follow, but if you are looking for easy entertainment, this is not for you. There are some very mature sub-plots that will leave some viewers behind, empty, and in the dust. (If you care to look at the votes on this, the demographic breakdown is proof of this; the older the viewers, the higher the rating!) It takes a superb attention span and recall to get to the end of this film in one piece and then you might wonder where you started; but it is worth it. This movie is like a fascinating painting that you can't forget even tho it has some drips,runs,and smudges in it.


Now that is a film that tries to show the modern world of relationships and how many people just do not get what they want, due to mean folks around, lack of communication and trust or just unfitting circumstances. Depressing autumn movie, but with a glimpse of hope and great music of mostly Spanish origin.


A movie like the life - complex, with unexpected connections, ups and downs - intelligently made. The actors are great as well, especially Franka Potente.


I think this is quite a nice movie. In a scene that is somewhere halfway (actually I bet it's precisely halfway) you get the clue you need: there's no beginning and no end in this movie, so don't bother yourself looking for it. Once this is taken for granted, you see some quite excellent scenes, in which you are in the thick of things of the life of some (more of less) loose connected people. There is humour, affection, love, lust and sadness, and most of the players are very convincing. The only character that could be missed in my opinion was Linda, played by Franka Potente: she is playing exactly the same character as she was in 'Lola rennt' (without the running). Just an irritatingly weird girl, with no real or convincing acts and emotions, except her singing her own flamenco song. If Franka Potente can't play a character unlike Lola, I'm sorry to say I've seen enough of her by now.


Great director, great story, great movie, great actors and actresses (Potente, Dobra, Petri, Berger, Makatsch, Wink). I wait for video!!

P.S. Great music also. CD is a must!!


Once more Doris Dörrie makes us dive into the deep absurdity of life in general and love affairs more specifically. Through precise observation and careful staging she displays the weakness and the strength of the characters. Two examples: One of the most powerful scenes is when Linda (Franka Potente - Germany's latest shooting starlet) prosternates herself in front of the Holy Virgin during the Semana Santa in Seville and prays for strength and courage. When the unfaithful husband is about to be discovered and drops to his knees asking his daughter for help is another scene that made me both laugh and weep. "Bin ich schön" is one of the best satires on society I have ever seen and Doris Dörrie may well be seen as the European counterpart to Woody Allen.


Dorrie seems to have mellowed since Men and Nobody Loves Me, both of which were fresh and delightfully uncharted-water, passionately warm takes on one of her overriding concerns and themes, an exploration and advocacy of an existentialist philosophy of life. This time out, perhaps just for being another decade out post-existentialism, her labyrinth of expatriate German adventurers in exotic Spain ultimately feels oddly somewhat less fresh or less fully emotionally engaging but nevertheless is a solid and intellectually engaging new set of contexts and characters through which to examine more turns of the die. A child's-captivated-ear indoctrination into the myths which so easily lead us astray (into false hope, then deception, then dried-up going-through-the-motions stub-toed, danceless mere existence) frames what is broader in scope in this film compared to the previous two: there is no age or gender delimitation of focus here as we see random-encounterers young and old, female and male, show their vulnerability to idealized visions which leave them floundering. Through one particular children's tale which begins and ends the film, Dorrie implicitly observes that it is in the stories we are told that our false expectations of life take root, here a tale about a tiger and a bear who conjure up a ballyhooed idyllic land to set their sails for-a banana-growing nirvana named Panama. We adults know, wink-wink, the folly of the tiger and bear, but we love such stories and we crave expectation-building stories like an addiction, she seems to say...and thereby in childhood learning sets the stage for evaluating the ensuing adult ventures toward their own mirage-like horizons. So feed us stories, Doris: ...about a lost lover--or two, a lost wife or two (one mortally, another spiritually), a lost identity or two (one intentionally, another accidentally), a lost fantasy or two... or a dozen. The title would have us ask to what extent these losses of illusion, of dreamed-of perfection, impact our ability to see and feel true untrammeled pleasure in both ourselves (am I beautiful?) and in others (can I delight in making another happy? to realize and throw off the layers of claptrap that keep me/us from casting onerous cognition to the wind and instead to indulge the heart and the moment--from literally throwing one's possessions out the window to indulging what might have been an offputting fetishist's fantasies to singing out to engage the spirit of a foreign exotic spiritual procession and be willing to acknowledge in song one's fears and quests). It's not a new theme but it's reworking works, albeit keeping us a bit at arm's length from the subjects, perhaps (wittingly?) to mirror the arm's length from the fullness of engagement in life that is the nature of existence for her characters until varying quiet epiphanies open their paths to new alternative ways of perceiving. (In some ways, this medium-is-the-message reflection on the chagrins of a life lived at arm's length parallels that of the more recent French film Under the Sand.) As the path taken by Linda (Franka Potente)--one of the younger and central questers--displays, the search for the keys to existential truth, to 'be here now', can too easily alight on answers >that look programmable and can lead to 'false gods' along the path, most unacceptably that of inauthenticity. Just as Linda learns that she can derail herself entirely if she is not honest or tries to manipulate (trying to control others or their feelings with her bag of tricks whilst living in disguise from and thus not owning herself), so others learn how easy it is to kid themselves into thinking they've found the elusive 'peace' or 'simplicity' which they perceive in an ostensibly uncomplicated lover who then proves suicidal, or other escapist plan which goes awry. Almost nothing is what it, he, or she seems-until they learn to be vulnerable, self-accepting, sentient and thereby empowered. There lurks complexity and pain, just more buried in some than in others. There is no carefree Panama banana republic, but there is pleasure in honesty of spirit. And the voices of this realization come in some curious packages (further fleshing out the wisdom-where-you-least-expect-it notion whose fascinating messenger in Nobody Loves Me was the voice of a marginalized, lovelorn but lovingly unselfish transvestite): here an overweight chef who is blissfully married to his young-love sweetheart with a passion for her soul that knows no parameters or criteria but is unabashedly unconditional, a Spaniard who refuses to indulge his German girlfriend's need to hear spurious pledges of eternal love, the errant husband/father who seizes the moment to respectfully respond to Linda until her deception forces him to draw his line in the sand and thus startles her back to self-acceptance, another errant husband/father whose Caribbean indulgences have actualized his spirit of "to dance is to live" and who finally lures down the encrusted wall behind which his wife has been taking sullen refuge. Here it is most often the women who have internalized the childhood idyllic stories to their peril, having sold themselves a flurry of fantasies that focus on the future or the past, who with well-meaning enchantment see heaven in a red cashmere sweater they sell or buy, a stereotypically fanciful wedding gown, a notion of storybook romance, and who--with considerable blindness--stumble in seeking their way back to themselves. But they do listen, and learn.


I watched "Bin ich schön?", because quite a few people told me it was so beautiful, poetic etc. So I rented it, with high expectations, whether it was a French piece of art or an American blockbuster (both can be great). I've never been more disappointed. After almost two hours of rather incoherent snippets of stories I was waiting for the surprise ending, connecting all the pieces, leaving me with a message: "Don't date", or "Don't like rain? Go to Spain", I don't know. But finally the credits appear and nothing is explained. Some say "it's an open ending!", "the connection is the incoherence!" - but I just feel two hours of my life gone forever. Maybe I didn't get it, because the acting is as terrible as always in German productions or the screenplay was just lousily written out. A second star for some nice shots of Spain and tolerable music.


Love him or hate him, you have to admit that John Milius has returned in force to make this wonderfully epic movie. He only made two other films (barely) worthy of note: the underrated Flight Of The Intruder and the equally under-rated Farewell To The King. Though directed for television, Rough Riders has all the qualities of a great war epic from the sixties.

What helps Milius is his love of the subject matter. With The Wind And The Lion, Rough Riders feels as though Milius has a deep and abiding love for Theodore Roosevelt. Every frame of this movie gives you the feeling that Milius is working from the heart. His passion and respect for his subject matter illicited the greatest performance of Tom Berenger's career.

If you liked this, do see The Wind And The Lion.


Damn fine film. Some historical points have been stretched a bit, here and there...Bucky O'Neil was a madman who refused to keep his head down and got shot right through his cigarette ... Fighting Joe Wheeler was a bantam rooster of a man (5'3") but with the heart of a lion who did indeed keep referring to the enemy as "the Yankees"...TR's Rough Rider's attack was up the nearby Kettle Hill (Cero de Olla) where they racked the Spanish position across the narrow gully with deadly fire; when the Spanish [and there were about 1,500 men-- not 500, as some reviewer suggested] broke to fall back to Santiago, TR boldly took off alone toward the San Juan Heights (Los Altos de San Juan)having forgotten to give the order to charge...

OK. Enough of History. Yes, Stephen Crane, author of The Red Badge of Courage, was a "looper," as one reviewer puts it, and yes, WR Hearst was a war-baiter-- anything to sell papers and fan the fires of xenophobia... But, hey! This is a damn fine film that captures much of the spirit of that "Bully little war," that launched TR's career into the White House. Tom Berenger is wonderful as the one and only TR who adored by his men (reportedly, on the march into the interior from the coast, TR walked with his men, refusing to ride, through the humid, hot forest and always saw to it that "his boys" were taken care of first. I too noted sadly, the weariness of Brian Keith prior to his suicide, as President McKinley. This film is definitely worth watching again ... and again.


I cannot overly praise this great motion picture. When I saw it on television, I was amazed at its quality and verve, and eagerly awaited it on video. I was not disappointed.

This is a fantastic motion picture on many levels. The scoring was perfect, and the painstaking, accurate attention to detail in period weapons, uniforms, and accoutrement was obvious.

Though the actual facts of the engagements depicted were a bit different than is portrayed in the film (due to time constraints and for the sake of lucidity), the movie has a genuine 'feel' for Teddy Roosevelt, his famous outfit, and the times they lived in.

Sam Elliott, as Captain Bucky O'Neil, was a standout and should have won an award for his performance. He's always a pleasure to watch on screen, but he infuses his part here with genuine toughness, a wonderful dry humour, and great humanity.

Then again, the entire cast was wonderful, particularly Chris Noth, Brad Johnson, Tom Berenger, Dale Dye, and especially scene-stealer Gary Busey. Watch for the actor who played "Indian Bob"; he has one of the funniest (and most human) lines in the film.

This is the only movie I've ever seen that I wanted to be in, in some capacity. It's that good.


ROUGH RIDERS, John Milius' tribute to the legendary Spanish-American War volunteer unit headed by future President Theodore Roosevelt, can be nearly considered a 'prequel' to his classic, THE WIND AND THE LION. Certainly no director has ever presented a richer portrait of one of the most complex, fascinating men of the twentieth century than Milius has, in these two films.

When 'War Fever' against the Spanish grips the nation, fueled by the inflammatory headlines of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst (flamboyantly played by George Hamilton), young Teddy Roosevelt (Tom Berrenger, who is superb), exhibiting the headstrong energy he was famous for, decides he has to be a part of it. Getting veteran Apache fighter Col. Leonard Wood (real-life film military adviser Dale Dye) to command his unit, Roosevelt puts out a call for volunteers, and his name, already famous nation-wide, draws an extraordinary mix of personalities, from bank robbers (Brad Johnson, in one of his best performances), to a frontier marshal (Sam Elliott, who would play a similar character in WE WERE SOLDIERS), to Indians (Bob Primeaux and David Midthunder, both excellent), to a group of Ivy Leaguers (led by LAW AND ORDER star Chris Noth).

At a White House meeting, President William McKinley (a frail-looking Brian Keith, who had portrayed 'T.R.' in THE WIND AND THE LION) and his Secretary of State, John Hay (R. Lee Ermey), appoint southern Congressman 'Fighting Joe' Wheeler to lead the American forces, with the rank of General (primarily to appease a South still bitter over the Civil War). An ex-Confederate officer (portrayed by Gary Busey, who nearly steals the film), Wheeler takes a liking to Wood and Roosevelt, and to 'Black Jack' Pershing's 'Buffalo Soldiers' (the famous Black regiment), over the 'regular Yankees', and does his best to give them preference, while offering his 'unreconstructed' advice.

With the eyes of the world on them, the 'Rough Riders' train (Elliott says, bluntly, "I'll teach them to become killers"), bond (the cowboys are stunned when Ivy Leaguer Noth easily breaks a stallion, then are told that he is a champion polo player), and show complete devotion to the eccentric but beloved Roosevelt ("He's one of us," one cowboy says, proudly). Despite a series of snafus (the horses get left behind, turning the unit into a 'dismounted cavalry'), the 'Rough Riders' make it to Cuba, and the thick of battle.

With legendary personalities Hearst, Fredric Remington (Nick Chinlund), Stephen Crane (Adam Storke), and Edward Marshall (William Katt) chronicling their actions, Roosevelt and his unit would be bloodied but unbowed, achieving immortality, with the 'Buffalo Soldiers' beside them, at the Battle of San Juan Hill...

Told as a flashback narrated by Brad Johnson, ROUGH RIDERS emerges as a remarkable history of a group of remarkable men. At the film's center is, of course, Berrenger's remarkable portrayal of Teddy Roosevelt, who, experiencing war first-hand, matures dramatically, developing the courage and strength of character that would soon make him a truly great President.

John Milius proves, again, that he is one of America's most underrated directors. ROUGH RIDERS is superb!


The depiction of America in 1898, the slowly healing wounds from the Civil War (in the South), the coming together of men of different backgrounds, as well as the apparently realistic battle scenes combine to make this one of the best Turner films in recent years. I would recommend it to anyone interested in Teddy Roosevelt or Bucky O'Neil or in the Spanish-American War and the economic (and idealistic) American view of Cuba at the time. The characters emerge as real people and the viewer forgets for a moment that it's a film.


I enjoyed this movie tremendously, but then again I'm a big Theodore Roosevelt fan. The movie does nothing to damage his reputation and is minimal in its application of modern sensibilities. There's lots of action, which closely mimics the historical accounts I've read. Believe it or not, by all reports TR was much as he is portrayed. Good performances abound with Tom Berringer topping the list.

I'll skip trying to tell you what was on these peoples mind when they went to war, however, TR had been de facto Secretary of the Navy and a politician for quite a while so I vote for less naivete than hinted at by another commentator. That said, true believers are reported to have been a far more common breed at the time.

A good rent, but I wish it were available on DVD. Talk to Ted Turner about that.


Tom Berenger was a great Teddy Roosevelt. It just shows his talents as an actor. The background research on the history was done and the locations were chosen wisely. Unfortunately this movie has not been put on DVD and was not receive wide publicity, so it was overlooked. In addition most of our youth today don't even remember the history beyond last week. I would have liked to see more of the relationship that Teddy had with his men. It's also a fact that many of his Rough Riders did not get to go to Cuba for lack of space on the ships. They wept at the thought of being left behind. At the mustering out - Teddy was presented gifts by his men and he said I'll never forget you. I think these items were overlooked in the movie.


This film chronicles the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry ("Rough Riders") from their inception in the mind of Teddy Roosevelt through the capture of the San Juan Heights, the moment at which Roosevelt said "We will always live in its shadow." Although it takes some liberties with the facts, they're simply to strengthen the story as constrained by the medium: better than two months and a thousand men are pushed into three+ hours and some fifteen characters, enough to catch the flavor of the time. And what a time: when rich young men from Park Avenue sincerely believed it was their duty to take part in their country's wars, and a politician who started one went to fight in it, when artists calmly painted oils of battle, and correspondents walked toward the sound of the guns... Fiercely accurate in the feel of the battle, especially the waiting under fire, and in the making of men into killers, "Rough Riders" is beautifully filmed and scored. But mostly, it's well acted. Berengar *is* Theodore Roosevelt, and Sam Elliott gives another good performance, as does William Katt as Edward Marshall (with a lot of Richard Harding Davis's actions). Gary Busey's Fighting Joe Wheeler is a scene-stealer, much like "the old gamecock" undoubtedly was, and the little roles are well handled as well, especially Nick Chinlund's Frederic Remington. But the real focus of the movie is on Brad Johnson's Henry Nash, the Arizona outlaw, and Chris Noth's Craig Wadsworth, the Park Avenue polo player... Noth in particular gives a understatedly lovely, nuanced performance as the rich young man coming face to face with Life -- the very thing his family had tried so hard to keep him from ever having to experience. His transformation mirrors the transformation this particular war created in our country; as Roosevelt says in the film, "It will never be the same again." I heartily recommend this movie.


"Rough Riders", despite the constraints forced by trying to put six months into three hours, is the best Spanish-American War movie, possibly the best war movie, I've seen in years. Tom Berengar's Teddy Roosevelt and Gary Busey's 'Fighting Joe' Wheeler are splendid evocations of two rather well-known men, replete with little details that bring them to life. The focus of the film, however, is on two ordinary troopers: Brad Davis's Henry Nash, a composite of the trooper from the Territories with a real Rough Rider's name, and Chris Noth's Craig Wadsworth -- one of the Park Avenue contingent, who enlisted as a trooper and mustered out as a sergeant. A few liberties have been taken, mostly by merging several men into one (eg, Richard Harding Davis is merged with Edward Marshall) or slightly misordering or misascribing actions to keep the characters down to a manageable and recognisable few (Marshall was shot at Las Guasimas, Tiffany actually died of fever), and the regiment's return to Montauk is left out, but overall tone of the movie is of scrupulous accuracy. It's a wonderful film; the Charge of the San Juan Heights will make you feel what war was like a century ago. Highly recommended.


I think Teddy would have approved. Sometimes modern movies present the past through modern beliefs and sensibilities. In fact, more often than not directors present the past in this manner. Rough Riders is an honest movie that lets the past speak for itself with no apologies. Teddy Roosevelt and his rather diverse band of recruits believed that they were going to Cuba to save the Cuban people from an evil and exploitive Spanish colonial government. Tom Berenger completely buries himself in the character of Teddy Roosevelt without the parody that often accompanies the part. He is surrounded by a cast of excellent actors from Gary Busey as General Joe Wheeler to George Hamilton as William Randolph Hurst. Sam Elliot, Francesco Quinn, and Brad Johnson are fictional characters used to represent the range of ordinary men who followed Roosevelt. Chris Noth, Holt McCallany, and James Parke are the wealthy scions of the Wadsworth, Fish and Tiffany families. I especially liked Nick Chinlund as Frederick Remington and Adam Storke as Stephen Crane. Except for Hurst and Wheeler, these men went into the war dreaming of honor and adventure. They saw themselves as heroes going off to save the Cuban people. They were men who quoted Shakespeare's Henry V "we happy few" and believed it implicitly. The director, John Milius, and his cast of fine actors do honor to themselves and their professions by allowing these naive young men to speak for themselves and their world.


Great action, great cast, nice special effects. I would have liked to have seen it on the big screen. One of the unique aspects of the Rough Riders was that the unit combined high society pretty boys, with rough, uneducated cowboys, and Indians. They throw in Black Jack Pershing and his Buffalo Soliders and it makes for a very interesting mix. Lots of good dialog. If you know who people like Crane, Remington, Pershing, and Hearst are it's even more enjoyable. Much of the parts dealing with Roosevelt seem to have come from the book "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt". The battle itself is changed but but to good dramatic effect. If you like war movies, or are interested in history, this one is for you.


Great movie and for the most part historically accurate. There were however a few minor errors of omission or commission. Gary Busey played a fantastic Gen. Wheeler but the actual Gen. Wheeler was considerably smaller in stature and weighed maybe half as much. There are pictures of Gen. Wheeler standing with TR and Col. Wood, both of which were taller and heavier. The movie does not depict the intense heat in Cuba in July with near enough severity. The heat was unbearable and went a large amount toward the reason for the incredibly high disease rate. Rough Riders as well as the other soldiers of the Cuban Campaign were 8-10 times more likely to die of malaria and dysentery than from being shot in combat. The movie spent only a little time on this.


this is an excellent film that most have never heard of because it was made for TV (turner)and never shown in the theater.not much to add except that the film sheds light on the short and little known 1898 Spanish-American war which while trumped up by the media(newspaper publisher William Randolph Hurst played superbly by George Hamilton)catapulted the up until then isolationist united states on to the world stage for the first time and which gave the united states control of Spanish territories around the globe-Cuba,Puerto Rico the Philippines,wake island,Guam and the Marshall islands.and allowing the united states to flex its military might globally for the first time.there are some historical inaccuracies(such as the imperial German army advisor's aiding the Spanish, director john milius also made the turn of the century imperial Germans the bad guys in his 1975 film THE WIND AND THE LION in which Brian Keith played teddy Roosevelt as president during an international incident resolved by his big stick diplomacy-sending the marines.if you liked rough riders see the wind and the lion.


This movie combines the best elements of western and war movies. Fantastic cast. Berenger is outstanding as Roosevelt. Who would have thought he would be so good in this role? From his other movies I've seen, this is a totally different type of role for him. And Sam Elliot, Gary Busey, Chris Noth, George Hamilton, and all the rest of the cast are outstanding. Wonderful casting job.

What a sleeper this movie is. I can't believe it's out of print, and never even been issued on DVD. Get a used copy if you possible can. You won't be sorry!

WW Tampa


Wish this great film had made it to the Big Screen! Absolutely the best film ever made on Teddy Rosevelt.

Great for the whole family in my opinion!

It not only documents his life... it also presents his great ideals and character as very 'Presidential' and to be desired. The same cannot be said of all our Presidents.

The depiction of the battle for San Quan Hill was one of the best war documentaries I've ever seen.

An all-star cast helps make this a classic movie.

I will get this movie for my collection for sure.

I will recommend it to all our family and friends.

-BGLewis of Spring Hill, FL


"Rough Riders" is an excellent movie about the 1st Volunteer Cavalry a.k.a. the Rough Riders. The movie begins with the declaration of war and the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt to raise a cavalry regiment that will fight in Cuba. The period of training for the troopers is grueling but you learn much about the characters that will be featured. Most of the movie concerns the Rough Riders in combat, especially the famous charge at Kettle and SanJuan Hills. The fighting is quite exciting and authentic. The Spanish-American War may be regarded as an imperialistic war but the "Rough Riders" is well-acted and shows the human as well as propaganda side of warfare.


This is truly a great film. Well done by all. Writing, production, acting. Incredible!!!!! I want to see a director's cut on DVD of this film!!!!! Busey was fantastic as Joe Wheeler and Sam Elliott, as always, does a fantastic job. His Bucky O'Neill was very well done. We can never have enough Sam Elliott westerns!!! We need more Sam! I give this film the highest of ratings! It is a must see by all! Thanks to the vision of the great John Milius, we have another film that salutes and pays honor to our veterans! Get this film out on DVD right away!!!!! Uncut, trailers, and the Making of...documentary. All the fans are begging for a DVD of this monumental motion picture!


On the 99th anniversary of the Spanish American war and the most famous land battle of that brief said war, John Millius wrote and directed a stirring tribute to the First Volunteer Cavalry. The group has come down to us in history as the Rough Riders and its organizer and second commander became President of the United States on the strength of one afternoon's very bloody work at a place called Kettle Hill, better known as San Juan Hill.

Tom Berenger makes a splendid Theodore Roosevelt. He captures all the passion in him, the brilliance as well as the bumptiousness. Some may find Roosevelt too super-patriotic, even too racist in some regards. It was a different time a century ago. Roosevelt was also a man who would stand for nothing less than the United States being nothing less than number one.

In his own way he pioneered integration, he was of the patrician class with roots going all the way back to Dutch New Amsterdam. But his Rough Riders as you see come from all walks of life, from society kids to even western outlaws.

Milius did his research well for the most part. Ileane Douglas whose family pedigree includes grandparents Melvyn and Helen Gahagan Douglas, plays the ever patient Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt. She loves her husband, but is able to say an occasional 'now Theodore' to put the brakes on his enthusiasm getting the better of him.

Rough Riders marks the farewell performance of Brian Keith as President William McKinley who Roosevelt said had the back of a 'chocolate éclair'. That was one of Roosevelt not so admirable qualities, his failure to see merit the other point of view had. McKinley was a wounded Civil War veteran who saw action as a young man in places like Antietam. He was not a man to rush lightly and foolhardily into a decision for war, knowing far more than TR at the time of what war can cost.

My favorite in the film is Sam Elliott as Yavapai County, Arizona sheriff Bucky O'Neill who joined the Rough Riders and was in charge of molding them into a unit. This is definitely one of Elliott's finest moments on screen.

The last Rough Rider died in 1975. I wish some of them had been around to see this fine film about a young America and what some of the best and brightest of that generation did. The politics behind the Spanish American War are debatable and dubious at best, but the heroism of our soldiers is unquestioned.


After watching this, I decided to read about Teddy Roosevelt. Wow! The movie captures him perfectly - as his wife Edith says, "a force of nature". And then I watched the movie again, and Wow! After reading, I know that Teddy and these Rough Riders were right at the front starting the USA on a course to joining the world powers. So, this is historically important stuff. Furthermore, from what I have found out so far, the movie was factually honest. Furthermore, the movie moved right along, was entertaining, frightening, and uplifting, all at the same time. Lastly, if Teddy had not come back alive, I would have proposed to Edith - what a gorgeous gorgeous lady. This movie is now one of my favorites.


Although clearly the most historically accurate and interesting film on this subject made thus far, there were some liberties taken.

Henry Nash and his "compadre" are fictional characters but are very helpful in moving the plot along. The same is true of Chris Noth's character, Craig Wadsworth.

Bucky O'Neil, properly spelled "Buckey O'Neill", was a real and important person both in, and before the battle. One of the most important people in the history of Arizona, he was actually buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full honors.

William Tiffany died, probably of malaria, while awaiting transport from Cuba. He was not fatally injured in the battle.

The Marshall character portrayed by William Katt is, most likely,a composite of correspondent Richard Harding Davis (1864-1916) and correspondent/photographer James H. "Jimmy" Hare (1856-1946). Both obviously survived the battle and become well known newsmen.


Very uninteresting and boring on a very unbelievable level. From beginning to end it makes all of the classic film mistakes that most directors try to avoid. A great cast doesn't always mean the movie will be great itself. I watched this in my American History 2 class and I fell asleep after the first ten minutes. Please note that my history class is my second favorite class and the most enjoyable of the 11th grade. Now, while this movie tends to over-exaggerate and wander off the beaten path, I can't take anything away from Sam Elliot. He was the only actor worthy of appraise in this film but as it is I don't think I have ever disliked him in any film before. The ending of this movie has a terribly cliché moment in it when one of The Rough Riders die, and his friend holds him and does the same dreadful thing they do in all movies when a character dies.

3/10


wow.this depiction of the Spanish-American war,and one particular American regiment,took my breath away.there may be some historical liberties taken,but who cares.this TV mini series was outstanding.the battle scenes were something to behold.John Milius directed and co-wrote this movie.he also wrote several episodes of the TV series Rome.the acting her is first rate.Tom Berenger plays Theodore Roosevelt(before he became President)who led the regiment.Sam Elliot plays Capt.Bucky O'Neil,Gary Busey plays Gen.Joseph' Fighting Joe' Wheeler.also in the cast are Illeana Douglas as Edith Roosevelt,and Chris Noth.there are many others in the cast and all are superb.this movie is about 3 hours long,but it doesn't feel like that at all.this is one of the best war movies i have seen.9/10


The Spanish-American war is a relatively little known episode. Though of little military importance, it was politically significant and in several ways marked a turning point in American history. Great topic for a movie, yet in this case the end result falls dismally short of what it could have been.

Though only made for television, Milius was clearly trying to create an epic. Despite a promising start the movie is essentially much too long and downright tedious. The film-making is extremely conventional to put it mildly. Worse yet, the entire movie is based on the same old stereotypes typical of patriotic Hollywood war movies copied time and again, in this case all put together in an inflated, unrealistic and grotesque jumble.

We have seen it all over and over again, from an ex-outlaw evolving into a good soldier, Sam Elliot as the tough cowboy turned sergeant, evil, cowardly German advisors importing the latest in arms technology. Action is often severely overdone in the manner of Victorian propaganda, with troops reciting Shakespeare in the midst of battle. The absolute high point of this absurdity is the figure of Roosevelt, slinging his revolver faster than Wyatt Earp while heroically leading the charge. There are also darker and not quite so subtle themes where Milius' militant patriotism really brings uncomfortable undertones - most notably two scenes of killing prisoners, which is shown as almost glorified or at least self-explanatory.

All in all, severely overdone, overblown and tedious to watch unless you enjoy militant propaganda.


TCM broadcast this film in a grouping of Valentino films but the film really belongs to Mae Murray. I should add that Mae Murray seemed to be imitating Mary Pickford when she was in her comedy cups, down to gestures, mannerisms, facial expressions, it was uncanny. I kept visualizing Mary Pickford as I watched Mae, it was that strong.

The film is about a girl who is desperate for a well paying job and she tries out at a nightclub as a dancer. The proprietor is looking for someone "with a past", and Mae's character is a properly brought up young girl with no past at all. So she lies, pretending to be a notorious ex-lover of a duke, so that she will seem exotic enough to be hired. Her tryout test is a scream, I was laughing my head off. Eventually the real duke shows up and even though he knows she is not the same woman he had a fling with he still wants Mae. Valentino's character is jealous and a pursuit for the girl begins.

I really enjoyed the picture, and think you will too. Just don't expect the film to focus on Valentino, and you'll be OK with it. If it's true it will be included on the future Beyond the Rocks DVD it will find a whole new audience, which can only be beneficial to Mae Murray, since not a lot of her silent film work seems to be available to the public.


There are precious few films of the silent screen superstar Mae Murray known to exist these days and when a new one emerges it's a cause for celebration. DELICIOUS LITTLE DEVIL is particularly valuable in that it's the first of her silent comedies to rise from the archives and costars the legendary Rudolph Valentino as her beau. Mae stars as a poor girl supporting her parents and a no account uncle who passes herself off as the notorious showgirl mistress of a Duke and becomes a sensation in a New York nightclub. Among Mae's most ardent admirers is young millionaire heir Valentino who vows to marry her. Rudy's father is not amused and plans a lavish party in Mae's honor hoping she will reveal her true colors with the booze flowing. To make matters worse, the infamous Duke crashes the party. This delightful little comedy is a fascinating glimpse of the first days of the Jazz Age with a never more charming Mae Murray who practically cannot stand still and gives a sweet, amusing performance and then there's the stunningly handsome Valentino, then not yet a star but certainly showing star charisma in spades. An additional bonus is the fantastic musical score and some wonderful title cards with vintage artwork that really brings back the art deco era.


An 'extra' on the recent DVD edition of the Gloria Swanson/Rudolph Valentino starrer BEYOND THE ROCKS (see my comment there), this is another recovered pic from the Netherlands archive. It's a ramshackle comedy from Universal, megged by Robert Z. Leonard (later a fixture @ M-G-M), starring his soon-to-be wife, the largely forgotten Mae Murray. (Her tenuous claim to fame is her preposterous, yet mesmerizing perf in Stroheim's MERRY WIDOW.) Here she's mugs like crazy in sub-Mary Pickford mode as a darling Irish-American spitfire who poses as Eurotrash to land a dancing gig at a club. The prosaic truth comes out just in time for a happy ending with an impossibly youthful Rudolph Valentino who's the freshest thing in the film, looking surprisingly like Buster Keaton. Really, just check out that profile in the final sequence.


I was completely shocked when I saw this film. Although a Rudolph Valentino film, instead of a movie about a slick Latin lover, it was a breezy comedy about a plucky nice girl that gets ahead by pretending to be a bad girl. Valentino, by the way, is one of her suitors.

Mae Murray plays the lead. She is frustrated because not only did she lose her job but her uncle and father are so lazy that everyone expects her to support them. One day she sees and ad for a dancer in a local road house. They are looking for a very worldly woman--much like the famous Theda Bara. Well, Mae is anything but this type of woman--looking awfully sweet and innocent. When she goes for the interview she is very nervous and tells them she is Ms. Du Moine--a famous European dancing vamp who was involved in a recent scandal. This is exactly the sort of woman they are looking for and she is hired.

Her dancing ability seems distinctly lacking, but considering that the public is not too well informed, they eat up all the silly dance numbers and the over-the-top costumes she wears. Mae starts making a boatload of money and the place is packed every night. And, each night in a seat of honor is the young Valentino--the son of a local rich guy. He's absolutely smitten with her and wants to marry her.

All appears to be going fine until Ms. Du Moine's ex-lover, the Duke, arrives at the road house! Mae realizes he will expose her for a fraud and tries to slip away, but the Duke follows her and tries to force himself on her. Valentino comes to the rescue and slaps the Duke silly. The police soon arrive and arrest the Duke (apparently he was really a con-man). The truth about Mae comes out (her dark secret is that she really ISN'T a slut!) and everyone lives happily ever after.

I really admire this film. It's funny and highly entertaining. And, while the plot is silly and hard to believe, it is so light-hearted that this isn't important. Plus, at less than an hour, the pacing is great and the story seems to have aged extremely well. I've seen a few hundred silents and I would rank this little film towards the top. An unexpectedly wonderful film.


This film seemed to run at high speed, but it made the action more hilarious! Mae Murray was the real star, as in this case her eccentricity worked! She plays a poor shop girl impersonating a show girl. She whirls around like a dervish and struts like a diva! It was funny how she presented herself as a Mary Pickford look alike! Over the top works for comedies,wish she had done more of the genre! Poor Rudy had little to do except look beautiful though! But I'm not complaining! I know this was an early effort for him.I guess he and Mae remained friends as he was best man at one of her weddings! This is a cute little rarity, and Mae is a hoot! Fine supporting cast with Harry I.Rattenberry as the father and Richard Cummings as Uncle Barnley being particular stand outs.


"The Bloody Judge" is unquestionably one of Jess Franco's finest accomplishments, and there are several elements that contributed to this. First of all, Christopher Lee depicts another unforgettably mean-spirited and frightening horror protagonist. This doesn't always guarantee a great movie, mind you, as Franco and Lee previously collaborated to make a couple of sequels in the Fu Manchu series, and they were dreadfully boring films. The character of medieval witch hunter Judge Jeffries clearly suits Lee a whole lot better than the oddly mustached oriental master-criminal and his performance confirms this. Secondly, for one of the few times during his entire career, Jess Franco could actually rely on a decent budget! There was enough money for fancy costumes and atmospheric scenery, and even the editing and cinematography were clearly handled professionally. Finally, you can hardly go wrong with the subject matter of medieval witch-hunting, political corruptness, vile torture footage and robust executions. Although clearly inspired by the popularity of "Witchfinder General" (starring Vincent Price), "The Bloody Judge" contains more than enough own ideas and ingenuity to be considered as a success in its own right. The film opens with the extended and compelling trial of a young girl accused of witchcraft, leading to her relentless execution burning at the stake. The long opening adequately introduces the character of Judge Jeffries, but the actual plot only unfolds after this. The executed girl's sister flees up the country and falls in love with the son of an eminent politician, who also happens to rebel against the corrupt English crown. The obsessive Judge Jeffries orders his followers to capture all the rebels and submit them to torture, but the army of William of Orange is slowly approaching England to conquer the crown. The amounts of graphic violence and  especially  gratuitous sleaze are admirably kept rather low, and this in favor of character development and tension building. Naturally, there are a handful of brutal sequences on display (notably the "interrogation" of poor Alicia) but "The Bloody Judge" is mainly story & atmosphere-driven. Franco regular Howard Vernon (Dr. Orloff!) has a small but terrific role as the sneering executioner Ketch. Like another reviewer already stated, Vernon here strangely resembles Marty Feldman when he played Igor in "Young Frankenstein". Maria Rohm is enticing and beautiful as ever playing Mary or "that wench" as people insist on referring to her. "The Bloody Judge" is a good film that easily deserves a spot in my Jess Franco top five, alongside "The Diabolical Dr. Z", "The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Faceless" and "Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun".


Jess Franco's "Il Trono di fuoco" aka. "The Bloody Judge" of 1970 is one of a bunch of early 70s exploitation flicks inspired by the success of Michael Reeves' 1968 masterpiece "Witchfinder General" (starring the great Vincent Price). People familiar with Jess Franco's cinema might expect an immensely sleazy and gruesome film that mainly takes place in torture chambers, but the film is actually tame for what one might expect. Even though there are a bunch of very brutal scenes, the level of sleaze and violence is quite low for a Jess Franco film, and the film is not even nearly as nasty as other popular 'Hexploitation' films of the time, such as the ultra-gruesome "Mark Of The Devil" from the same year. Equally surprising is the budget that was obviously quite high for Jess Franco standards, as realistic costumes and nice settings are provided.

Horror icon Christopher Lee, who worked with Jess Franco on several occasions, plays Lord George Jeffreys, the infamous and merciless judge and Lord Chancellor in England torn by strife between the reigning King James II and William of Orange. Convincend of doing what's necessary, the cruel judge mercilessly persecutes 'traitors', who sympathize with the King's opponent William of Orange, as well as 'witches', who are accused of being in league with the devil...

Christopher Lee is, as always, great in his role as the merciless judge (who is based on the infamous real-life 'hanging-judge' George 1st baron Jeffreys). Beautiful Maria Rohm, who starred in many Franco-highlights, most memorably in "Venus in Furs" and "Count Dracula", plays the female lead here, and she fits in her role very well. Jess Franco-fans will also recognize another regular in his films, Howard Vernon, who plays the executioner. Another great enrichment to the film is the great score by Bruno Nicolai. Jess Franco, one of the most prolific directors ever, has directed a bunch of absolutely awesome films, as well as total stinkers. "The Bloody Judge" is definitely one of his better films (even though, in my opinion, not one of his masterpieces), and a more than decent historical horror film. Highly recommended!


My review is based on the recent DVD release which is more explicit than the version released in theaters. However, both versions were rather explicit.

I am not the most prudish person out there, so don't automatically think I am just a nut based on my summary. Saying the film is 'rather pornographic' is not something I say lightly and I am surprised that none of the other reviewers found this film offensive. But, in addition to having a lot of nudity (some very explicit), most of this nudity was sadistic in nature--showing women getting raped or being tortured. Woman after woman appeared in the film naked or semi-naked and drenched in blood while being brutalized. Now the film was about the evil abuses of the British courts in the late 17th century--so some brutality is inevitable. However, women are simply objects--objects to be brutalized for some voyeuristic fantasy.

The film is about a particularly evil judge (Christopher Lee) who takes great delight in sentencing people to death and maltreatment. While he personally doesn't even see the results of his sentences, he knows what sort of atrocities his men do and he is completely indifferent. In addition, late in the film he rapes a comely prisoner--so he's obviously a pretty horrible person. Most of the film consists of either showing women being savaged or showing the 'good guys' in their crusade to rid the country of an incompetent king (James II) as well as his evil minions (including Lee).

While this COULD have been a very good film (after all, it's a very important part of British history that's been mostly ignored in movies), it isn't. It is excessive and gross throughout. The actors appear to try their best with the material, but how can actors get noticed when the film has little plot (at times) and lots of drooling sickos molesting and beating women? Even if you are a fan of Christopher Lee (like me), I can't recommend the film. However, if you'd like a similar and not quite as excessive film, try watching Vincent Price's WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1968). While not exactly the same plot (it doesn't mention the transition from James II to William of Orange during the revolution, as it was set about 40 years earlier in history) and also a bit graphic, it is about an evil judge who delights in torture and rape to deal with witches...or pretty much anyone who doesn't do his bidding. And, fortunately, the film doesn't feel like a snuff film--like THE BLOODY JUDGE ("Il trono di fuoco").


The kind of incompetent filmmaking that can be enlivened only by a few torture scenes. A completely uninvolving film, with a storyline so muddled that you often don't know Who-IS-Who. I watched the (allegedly) uncut, letterboxed rereleased version, and apart from an unpleasant rack scene, it's not particularly strong stuff. "Mark of the Devil" was a much superior entry in the same "witch-hunting" genre. Watch that one instead! (*1/2)


I saw this film only twice on television in the late 1960s, and I have not seen it listed too frequently. The plot is from a Graham Greene short story, and like so many of his works Greene questions what we regard as good and evil in the world.

Steiger is a crooked financier on the lam. He boards a train and exchanges identities with another passenger who died on board. He reaches a Latin American country, and crosses the boarder. But the authorities at home are still after him. He did not realize the person whose identity he stole was sought by the U.S. authorities for murder.

Steiger has plenty of money in a suitcase, but he soon discovers that the local authorities see him as something to bleed dry. Everyone jacks up prices for his normal living expenses from the police on down. And the money is slowly running out. The only creature who befriends him is a dog. It remains his only real friend in this town of vultures. He consistently refuses to return to the U.S., where police officer Bernard Lee tries to get him to return. But he realizes that they think he is the murderer, not an embezzler, and he can't return. Moreover, he resents the pressures that are being put on the local authorities to push him back. They are using these to squeeze more cash out of him.

The character Steiger begins as is a selfish crook, but as the film progresses (as is typical of Greene's work) the defects of those around the anti-hero are such as to make us increasingly sympathetic to that figure. As he is stripped, step - by - step of everything, Steiger gains our reluctant pity, and his relationship with the simple dog makes him ... in the end... tragically heroic.

Definitely a wonderful film - hopefully they will show it again soon.


Yet another long forgotten and unpretentious film of superior quality which seems to have slipped through the net (judging by the lack of comments !).

I can remember seeing this excellent thriller only once many years ago but it certainly made a lasting impression on me. The interplay between Steiger and his highly intelligent canine co - star was quite riveting .

This shamefully overlooked movie provides even more proof that you CAN, occasionally, find buried treasure if you're prepared to wander off the beaten track from time to time.


Across the Bridge has one of those titles that makes it sound like an Arthur Miller play but is actually based on one of Graham Greene's guilt-racked stories. And it's a corker, with a great premise that reminds you that before he moved on to guilt, infidelity and Catholicism, Greene wrote cracking pulp thrillers like A Gun for Sale. Rod Steiger is powerful and shady financier Carl Schaffner, on the run from the British police in America and trying to cross the border into Mexico before he can be extradited. So he does what any one of us would do - kills another person who looks vaguely similar to steal his Mexican passport and travel unhindered on that. Naturally, things go wrong. He finds himself saddled with the dead man's dog. The dead man turns out to be a killer wanted by the Mexican police. And the dead man turns out not to be dead. And that's not the least of it, as the unexpected plot twists mount while Schaffner starts to look like the least corrupt person in the film compared to the strokes Noel Willman's patiently greedy Mexican police chief and Bernard Lee's determined but less than ethical Scotland Yard man are willing to pull to either get his money or lure him across the bridge...

Ken Annakin's film may be shot on location in Spain, but it has a resolutely British studio look to both its photography and its interior work (as well as its rather over-emphatic James Bernard score) - you can take the British out of Britain but not the Britishness out of their films, it seems. Not that that's a complaint: indeed, it gives the film a strange texture that you don't naturally associate with this kind of material that adds to its anonymously professional uniqueness. Steiger's performance is at once theatrical (while contained enough not to descend into the ham of later roles) yet convincing - and the existence of similar fraudsters like Robert Maxwell only adds to the credibility. But more than that, as he is stripped of everything, he attains a genuine heroic quality. That it manifests itself in an almost pathetic act to repay the only soul in the world that does not betray him only makes this shambling, ungainly figure all the more tragic. And who can blame him - one look into Dolores' eyes and you'd do the same.


Like some others here I had seen this movie once many years ago, I was very young and came upon it at least 30 minutes into the film. Over the years I forgot the title of it, but never the plot and Rod Steiger and of course Dolores. I never saw it TV again. I would ask people about it describing the plot but no one seem to remember it.It wasn't until I was looking over Steiger's filmography that I found out the title. I bought the DVD and watched last night and memories of years and years came back over me.The music the photography, the hopelessness. So beautiful, so sad.If you have not seen it yet, please do so. One of the most forgotten movies and one of the best performances Rod Steiger ever gave.


After over a year, I watched Across The Bridge again, as companion piece to Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I had forgotten some of the twists and turns it takes, but enjoyed it just as much the second time around.

My spontaneous reaction at the first time ("Citizen Kane meets Casablanca") still holds. It has the downfall of the rich and powerful man theme, as well as the strandedness under the whim of border bureaucracy. And much more... not to mention the dog.

Of course it's dated, but that is no point against an old film. I loved watching it again, and reconfirm that this piece has several topics that I haven't seen in any other film - just to start with the borderline drawn across the bridge. I look forward to watching this again. 9/10.


Like other reviewers here, I saw Across the Bridge decades ago, but have never forgotten it.

Rod Steiger plays a powerful, self-centered financier whose business empire, at the beginning of the film, is starting to crumble under charges of illegalities. He flees for Mexico on a train with a suitcase full of money.

His disregard for others is confirmed when he casually murders a fellow train passenger in order to assume his identity and pass across the border.

Once in Mexico, the authorities, under pressure from U.S. officials, put pressure on him to return "across the bridge" to the United States, so that he can be arrested. Most of the film is concerned with the slow stripping away of this once-powerful man's options, to where he is left sleeping on the streets, befriended only by a dog. The ending of the film is emotionally powerful, and probably the main reason why so many of us have never forgotten this movie.

Since I wrote this review, I've seen the film again, on DVD (in 2005). It does not hold up that well. There's a subplot I had completely forgotten about. I realize now what I remembered about the film was highly selective. In truth, the movie has some interesting parts, but it's not the classic I remembered it being. By all means see it, but it's rather dated.