Contrary to the initial comment on this page, the director Luis Bunuel did not use two different actresses to play the lead role as a plot device to show "One actress for her placid nature and another actress for her tempermental side."

While this is an oft-repeated misconception, it's not remotely true. In Luis Bunuel's autobiography, "My Last Sigh" (A fantastic book, still in print) the director discusses the reason for this unique directorial device, and how funny he finds it that so many "fans" assume that the choices were based on the actresses temperment or his desire to "express" something obscure. In truth, two actresses were used simply because the lead actress quit partway through production after having completed many critical scenes. Luis was beside himself over the wasted time and money in reshooting, so he hired a replacement to shoot only the missing scenes, and edited them irregardless of who was acting in a given scene. It served him well, as the end result was brilliant.


Depending on your point of view, this film is either a biting, insightful, timeless illumination of human dignity and indignity or a woeful commentary on how painfully slowly we evolve. The main story, humorous and poignant by turns, is punctuated by subplot bits that come right out of this week's news. Not bad for a film shot a quarter of a century ago.

Fernando Rey is simply wonderful, and Conchita are fabulous! Bunuel, as always, is once again a delight.


I watched this film with my parents, & ended up having an interesting discussion with my mother on it. I'd seen Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie beforehand, which was probably helpful.

The translation of the title reads, "that obscure object of desire" which is as relevant a title as could be. It's a surrealist film, which is only directly revealed not in the strange dream-sequences Charm employs, but rather in a very simple technical element: the use of two actresses for a single female lead. The two actresses are interchanged with seeming complete subjectivity. The only easy thread to denote is perhaps that one actress plays the more "French" side whereas the other plays the more "Spanish" side -- as though the character is meant to be Spanish, she grew up partially in Paris. I've read some theorizing that the one of the sides was emotive, & the other distracting -- which is also plausible.

However most of what I want to discuss goes to the core of the meaning of a surreal film. My mom, it must be said, does not care much for the surrealists. I must admit, I never was crazy about Salvador Dali. The problem I think both of us have had to varying degrees is our own base level of empiricism that surreality ignores. Obviously, one woman can not be two women in any literal sense. But I think this is where the value of surreality can be appreciated. Surrealism has an ultimate primacy of being able to discriminate completely against "insignificant time" (as I posted on before) & even the ability to flaunt "insignificant time" as "significant time." The film itself I feel must be read as symbolic. Neither characters are particularly sympathetic in the sense that neither is particularly human. The male archetype is presented as Mathieu: older, richer, & wanting sex. The female archetype is presented as Conchita (which is short for the Spanish name Conception): young, beautiful, virginal, but sexually aware. My mom projected literal psychology on both characters as being the opposing parts of a sadomasochistic relationship, with Conchita as the sadist. I don't think it's that simple.

Conchita continually asserts a nearly narcissistic if not wholly so appreciation of her self & independence. Whenever she feels Mathieu could own her she spites him with her assertions she is physically capable of providing for herself. Mathieu, in turn, desires Conchita greatly but does not seem to love her. He makes no overtures of marriage, & in fact seems very resistant to the idea. Conchita is threatened by her "love" of Mathieu, & the loss of independence it would engender, & Mathieu is obsessed with his physical desire for Conchita.

Throughout the film Bunuel seems to throw in irrelevant information about terrorism, which is only made more silly & surreal by its treatment (one of the groups is called Revolutionary Army of the Baby Jesus, with a pantheon of other silly acronyms under it) & his seemingly repeating this device from Charm. The film, I believe, depicts what obsessive desires about self do to blind us to the obvious reality around us. In this case Conchita's narcissism & Mattieu's lust make the fact that their world is falling apart seem totally unimportant. Bunuel uses this right up till the final scene.

Before I talk about the final scene, however, I want to establish another subtle surrealist thread through the film. Mathieu carries around a bag through several of the scenes. It is very out of place because it is a cheap rucksack (Mathieu is rich) and is never given an obvious purpose. It is just a seemingly random rucksack. We find out at the end that this rucksack is filled with lace & lace nightgowns: some of which are ripped & bloody. Mathieu & Conchita drop this rucksack off at a shop, & Mathieu gestures in amazement how an middle-aged woman stitches up a hole in a beautiful blood-stained lace garment shut, as if it'd never been ripped.

The implication is not difficult to read, especially when we see Conchita's reaction, which is one of utter disgust. Mathieu is carrying around his past sexual experience, & trying to show Conchita that to be deflowered (Conchita's virginity is a topic of much conversation) does not mean one's delicate feminine beauty is ruined forever. Conchita reacts to this comment by running away from Mathieu. He catches up to her and here is where Bunuel reminds of the outside word: they are both blown up in a terrorist bombing. Their explosion is the finale.

Bunuel uses surrealism to give a prescriptive ethical message: if you are concerned only about your needs, you will be destroyed by the outside world, which does not concern itself with you. My mom didn't like the idea that this was about gender types because she said it doesn't really apply to any men or women she knows. I feel this is a bit denying, but I can admit it's not a literally applied dynamic. It is merely a symbolic message: if we took these gender roles to their extremes we would treat each other horribly, & have no consideration for the greater good. I admit this is a somewhat simple, even didactic message. But I disagree that it doesn't have meaning for reality because it does not represent reality.


spoilers

I really wish I hadn't known the title of the movie before seeing it for the first time. The plot is an examination of a walking appetite trying to fulfill itself by subjugating and controlling what it wants. Buñuel brings this to life with Fernando Rey playing an older man who has every need and luxury covered, but cares nothing for it if he can't have an enigmatic young woman named Conchita. Played alternately by an austere beauty, Carole Bouquet, and an impish vixen, Angela Molina, Conchita literally morphs away from him every time Rey's character comes close to having sex with her. Until the very end, she confounds and frustrates him because she is what he can never have.

This is one of those movies that irritate people for several reasons. As a number of other reviews point out, Rey's Mathieu and Conchita are pretty repugnant people. Simply put, the kind of person that expects movies to provide characters who are morally good people to identify with will be as disappointed with Obscure Object as with any Altman or Kubrick film. It isn't that kind of movie. The theme is a dark examination of desire, asking - is it inseparable from a lust for control?

Mathieu spends most of the movie trying to buy Conchita. Initially, he tries to coax her with food like an animal. When he learns she's a virgin, he tries to buy her off her own mother in a weirdly inverted dowry scene. Once he feels he's got exclusive rights to her in his country house, he immediately tries to set her up in his late wife's room - as though she's a new acquisition to replace an old spot left empty. And finally, in the Seville scenes where we see Conchita behind bars several times, he tries to set her up as his private stripper/whore. Conchita feints and rebuffs him at every turn, always stringing him along with a promise to love him on a condition he will never be able to meet. Namely, to respect her freedom as a person.

But she is the `object' in the title and the story is mostly retold by Mathieu himself, so it's almost impossible for Conchita to be a human even to the audience. What anyone can make out by the end is that Conchita is not only coming out ahead in her scam game with Mathieu, but that she is locked into a pattern of sadistic control herself. This quest leads, inevitably, to a kind of consummation where Mathieu beats the snot out of Conchita. Buñuel films the blows carefully and the scene is uncomfortably long. Is this the control that Mathieu bought? As he relates the scene to the people in the train car (a wonderful device for the retelling of an amoral story) he grins ecstatically as he relates how richly she deserved his attack. Then, just like every other time he's felt like he was getting somewhere with Conchita, she turns the tables on him and he finds himself pursuing her. It seems pretty obvious that violence will continue to escalate and the stakes will be higher the next time Conchita winds Mathieu up. But before we have to see this, Buñuel blows them up in a terrorist attack.

Terror and crime exist as background noise during the whole movie. Sometimes seeming to reflect the Mathieu/Conchita plot in news reports and it reinforces the theme of people getting what they desire through violence. A terrorist bomb kills indiscriminately to achieve some desired end (and Buñuel peppers the film with references to ever more absurd terror groups that could have no rational interest in common). A mugger by necessity takes what he wants from strangers. The plot of the movie is almost a literal redistribution of Mathieu's abundant wealth to the squalid Paris suburbs that Conchita lives in and the young drifters she travels with through her elaborate scheme. And the ultimate act of terror is Mathieu finally getting his hands on the protean woman he's been chasing and beating her into submission. Well, that's the penultimate act anyway before they too are consumed in some other person's desire for something that probably had nothing to do with them.

It's a masterpiece. As questionable morally in its intelligent use of stereotypes as Vertigo.


The story is told by Mathieu (played by the excellent Fernando Rey) to a group of strange people in a train carriage compartment. He is a wealthy man who meets a beautiful young woman named Conchita. They begin to see each other often, and Mathieu's desire for her grows stronger. Conchita is poor and lives with her mother in a small flat. Mathieu gives them a lot of money, but mistakenly tries to buy Conchita away from her mother. Conchita is played by two beautiful actresses, but strange as it may seem, this doesn't effect the film negatively. Sometimes when one version of Conchita walks through a door the other figure enters the next room. But this unique style does work.

Conchita teases Mathieu throughout the film and comes across as a manipulative vixen. Also, there is a group of terrorists bombing buildings and cars throughout the film. A strange sack is carried around and seen several times, too. These are the mysterious things Buñuel likes to add to his films. You also get the feeling that Buñuel knew this was going to be his last film with the ending, which is perfectly abrupt.


... Bunuel (not Sam, in this case). This movie is again about human obsession! The trick using 2 different actresses for one role as stated by another user, is not unique per se, but heightens the surrealism of the movie. And it does work perfectly as to other films that couldn't handle that same weight. Or couldn't convey it to the viewing audience at least!

While it has a slow pace, the movie feeds from it, especially because you have to get a grip of the story- and time-line you have to handle. It is not difficult to follow, but you might need to watch it a second time to really appreciate it :o)


The last film of a great master, his "swan song" was based on the novel "La femme et le pantin" written by Pierre Louÿs. The novel has been adapted to the screen eight times, and among the films are Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil Is a Woman" with Marlene Dietrich, Julien Duvivier's "La Femme et le Pantin" with Brigitte Bardot, and The Woman and the Puppet (1920) directed by Reginald Barker with Geraldine Farrar, American opera star from the Metropolitan Opera (1906-1922), one of the great beauties of her day, as well as one of the great voices of all time. It is not surprising that Luis Bunuel chose for his film the story of obsession, desire and all kinds of obstacles, including social, religious, and sexual that make it impossible to fulfill. All his films are explorations of the same theme, starting with the early "L'Âge d'or". "That obscure object of desire" is a story of Mathieu, a middle age businessman (Fernando Rey who had given great performances in four Bunuel's films), and a young woman named Conchita  played by two different actresses (French serene beauty Carole Bouquet and Spanish sensual Ángela Molina)  who alternately captivates and torments him. The director described his film as a "story of impossibility to own a woman's body". Luis Buñuel claims that there were neither a reason nor an explanation for using two actresses for the same role, he just felt that it would be right: "I don't know why it should be two. It was automatic" (from the DVD interview). When asked, what the obscure object of desire is, Buunuel answered: "I don't know." I think it is the best answer. How could the obscure object of desire be described or defined? Bunuel was able to recreate in the movie the atmosphere of danger, uncertainly and insecurity. Wherever the main character goes in search of his object of desire, there are always bombings, shootings, and theft.


makes you REALLY want to know what was intended. Many symbolic films are so twisted that they became pointless to anyone not still trying to earn that "A" in Filmology 101. Not this. Eventhe fact that none of the characters are likable isn't a turn-off, because they are so obviously just symbols. Nobody is supposed to feel sorry for any of them or see themselves or their neighbors in them.

so, what was intended? I CERTAINLY don't know. The film is too well done for that. Here are guesses from other people; The George Dubya view of Brunel: The "War between the sexes" is not just a game. It is just as much a war as the "War on terrorism", and to come out ahead on either requires waging full-scale war. Sitting back trying to pretend either can be played with kid's gloves leads to annihilation. Hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.

The Andrea Dworkin view of Brunel: Given that Brunel dwells on chastity and sexual morality ... Is sex rape? Is stealing virginity, stealing? Interesting how horrible news is recited while the torn, bloody nightgowns are being exhibited, but just as the women begins to mend the holes, the radio switches to pleasant music. Are we to take it that man's dominance of women, even the act of sex, equates with terrorism? Again, hard to believe that is the point, but that fits as well, or better, with the film than some of these other views.

The bigjack2 view of Brunel: bigjack2's comment on IMDb is the best review and the most plausible view. Read it. Vote for it. Get it to the top. It isn't far removed from the Bush view, in that focus on the analogy between terrorism/anarchy and the war between the sexes. I didn't know Brunel, but if big jack2 is right that Brunel held Trotskyesque views, this is probably the best analysis.

Speaking of views at the top; how did people find the one form the film buff from Ohio or wherever helpful? He calls this "one of the most bizarre films"? Are you kidding me? I don't watch that many films. OK, I do watch a high ratio of obscure or artsy films, but this film doesn't even make it into my top 30 for most bizarre films I've seen. Mr. Film-buff says "Bombings and deaths are at an all time high, yet he (Mathieu) doesn't really seem to notice this. He is oblivious to his surroundings." Are you kidding me? Mathieu is shown reacting to these events with disgust innumerable times. What? He doesn't leave his career and move form Paris to Timbuktu? Is that what makes him oblivious? Mathieu went on with his life in the face of terrorism, just as people do today. Mr. Film-buff says "I would go so far as to say that we are also oblivious to the surroundings ... we sometimes forget or miss the actions surrounding this film." Well, I think it is obvious you were oblivious, since you didn't seem to notice the innumerable times he is shown reacting to these events, but please learn to speak for yourself.

The film has so many great scenes. Why has nobody mentioned the scene where Mom asks Mathieu "So, you want to marry her"? and at that very moment, a mouse gets his neck snapped in a mouse trap in the corner of the room. Great stuff. Along that line, what was the point of the fly in Mathieu's drink? And why did the owner of the club refuse to serve Conchita just after she quit, but then the next time, he practically prostrated himself for her. What change was supposed to have occurred? Was it the point that she was now known to be living with a rich man, so she had to be respected?

The other under-discussed method is the makeup of the strangers on the train. A dwarf, a judge, a mother, and her YOUNG daughter. Firstly, why does Mathieu tell this story in front of the young girl? Before she is shooed out of the cabin, Mathieu has already dived deep into the war-of-the-sexes aspect. And why a dwarf? A dwarf playing a psychology professor who "gives private lessons"? Huh? This has to be a slur on psychology professors, because this professor interrupts repeatedly to make blatantly obvious points, and acting smug while doing so. Is the point that most professors are mental midgets? I don't know. And why is the judge the least judgmental of the bunch?

Another question; what is "obscure"? Certainly not Mathieu's desire to pound some poontang or steal some snatch. Does "obscure" refer to virginity? to something Conchita or the terrorist's want? I'd bet on the virginity angle, but who knows? I wish I had the time to watch this film about 10x. I'm sure I'd see something new each time.


I think Rey represents a sort of older, more humanist view of the world. The sac is a throwback to this. It also lends him a sort of imagery, as a worker, a man who made it on his own. The girl, is the new world, of terrorism, nudity, frigidity. At the end, the two have joined. He has given up his sack, she has given up her virginity. Their game is over. The end scenes are shot in silence till the very end. The explosion, perhaps it indicates Bunuel's negative view of the future.

I always get thrown off by these great 70s movies. The color printing is so bad, it looks comical. Why do you have to put 10 lines of text? That's daft.


This is a funny movie, and it's clever. If you don't get the jokes it's a problem with your sense of humor, not the writing.

By the way, the movie was made for $26,000. If it had jaw-dropping special fx and make-up at that budget, it should've won an Oscar.

It's entertainment, plain and simple. It's fun. Nudity, hunting clubs, and post-its are funny here. The scene in the sheriff's office with the corpse dumping is great.

And once again people, I'd like to point out that it was $26,000. Which means that all you can afford is film, a camera, and a few props, so the rest is riding on the imagination of the writers/directors. Anyone can make something that you can eat popcorn to for a couple of hours with a big budget. And it will be palatable to the masses. But making something original and funny on a shoe-string budget is an accomplishment.

Anyways, it's worth a watch.


Although at first glance this film appears to have been done as a final project for a film school freshman, the film has many great and classic qualities. Released in 2004 the grainy film quality gives it an older look adding to some of the great films of the 80's. The humor adds an element that isn't all too characteristic of these kinds of films but nevertheless is a welcome relief. The low budget is obvious but the filmmakers do a great job of stretching that budget and the final result is not a bad piece of work.

The characters are surprisingly deep and the actors portraying them give them a realness and are believable.

This type of film may not appeal to everyone but I suppose the only ones renting it will be the type who will enjoy it.


I generally don't hold out much hope for straight-to-video horror films, but this was brilliant--such a pleasant surprise! It was obviously made by folks who know and love horror movies--especially zombie flicks. This is evidenced in the opening scene where Chuck, the video store guy, talks over the phone with a customer about zombie films (while "Plan Nine" plays on the TV, no less). This movie was made with real reverence and humor. The script was hilarious--it made me laugh out loud several times. And the acting was pretty darn good, considering that the cast was largely "amateur." No one should criticize it for having a low-budget look--it was a low-budget film, for crying out loud! And it was worth a hundred of Hollywood's big-budget, CGI lovin', based-on-a-video-game, crappy zombie flicks. Just get a six-pack and watch it!


it's not as good as resident evil but it's still a 10 i did not even get scared when it came on sci channel last week long advertisement though but it was still awesome though that was the best movie i saw that had zombies cause it had a lot of light and the dude who wrote it if your on here good job dude.Shaun of the dead was good to.la.la.la.Ad.Ad.Ad.brass monkey junkie that monkey monkey. awesome movie dude Freddy is better than zombies.i hope bub the chainsaw dude is dead it was never closed..........i live in Texas thats why...........it sucks bad-ass.i ate.eye.cool.mummy.ass.jackass.Darin.i hate comments.they suck like you-tube.


Major props to Rob Rugan and Mike Benson for making this movie happen. I hope that viewers out here can appreciate "Hide and Creep" for what it is. For starters, don't prepare yourself for a spine tingling horror epic. "Hide and Creep" is unexpectedly hilarious. With their local approach (great, authentic southern accents), dry humor, and skillful editing--Rugan and Benson have the makings of a cult classic.

I think its great that the SciFi channel premiered this movie, and I cant wait for the sequel.

In the future, I'd like to see more with the actor who plays the bullet biting zombie in the police station--great scene.


I saw this movie on the Sci-Fi channel and it rocked. I watched with two friends and all three of us were laughing gut-busters the entire time. A great scene is when the heroes go to the Firehouse BBQ and risk their life against the zombies for just one more tasty chicken wing. I will probably need to rent the movie, because Sci-Fi blurred out the two hottie-boom-bottie zombies together in the bathroom. I'm glad they threw that scene in there to keep everyone watching.

The Coke vs. Pepsi dialogue was classic southern style. Also, when the only person alive in the police station tells the TV reporter to turn the SEC football game back on, it made me realize this cast injected some real southern dialogue into a Zombie movie.

Overall, this is a great movie, but you should know what to expect if you watch it. This a hilarious zombie movie done on a limited budget, but I think there is some real talent in the crew. Rob Rugan and Mike Benson could definitely produce some great work with bigger budgets. Also, I think this movie will go down as a classic break-through for Josh Snead (not listed in cast) as he made his theatrical debut as the erotic, bullet-eating zombie in the police station.


This is a zombie movie comedy, it's not a horror film by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, neither are most zombie films. People can't really be "scared" by all this silliness, can they? Anyhow, round up the usual bunch of rednecks and let some zombies loose in their town. Hilarity ensues. The local TV station is reporting on the zombies - a redneck calls up and complains that they preempted the basketball game. One guy says "It's the end of the world". Another guy says "Well, it isn't the end of that whiskey bottle. Mind if I have a swig?" You get the idea. People are comparing this to Shawn of the Dead - this is ten times better. I laughed on quite a few occasions during this movie. I changed the channel 1/2 hour into Shawn. That movie was garbage.

This film even shows a surprising amount of intelligence. One guy is lamenting the loss of his '64 1/2 Mustang which he had just finished restoring. You'll never, EVER hear mention of such a thing in a Hollywood movie because they assume that the audience is way too stupid to know what a 64 1/2 Mustang is, and they would become confused and disoriented.

The acting is really low-key, everyone just takes the zombies in stride, dealing with them much like they would a herd of cattle that got loose and began roaming around town. One guy, who's house is surrounded by zombies, goes outside to get something from his truck. Upon returning, his wife excitedly asks: "What have you decided to do!". "Oh, I wasn't deciding anything" he says, "I just went out to my truck to get my beer".

Overall, this is a delightful little film with a lot of originality and - gasp! - it's actually funny. When was the last time Hollywood poured $20 million into a film and actually produced a laugh? These guys did it for probably around $20 thousand.


Hide and Creep is bad. It is cheesier than a cheap order of nachos at your local megaplex theater. That being said, it is one of the better spoofs of the whole Zombie concept. Yes the plot is minimal. But the whole thing rates right up there with Shaun of the Dead. The characters are all very clever parodies of characters you have seen, or wish you had seen in much higher budget living dead type films. The snappy video store clerk. The bored and uninterested police dispatcher. The retired cop love interest. They even have the obligatory young couple who disappear while making out in their car at the beginning. And to make the whole thing more entertaining, they have the regular people in the town going about their lives while everything else is going on.

The entire movie is filled with good one-liners, and comments that you get if you have ever hung out with gun nuts or rednecks for any length of time. The importance of football. Gun safety. Why Coke is better than Pepsi. Don't rent this is you are expecting a glitzy, high budget action film. Get it if you want to laugh.


Its not often you see a movie go from completely serious war film to sci fi time travel to comedy and then somehow manage to keep its war film story intact that you're anxious to see how it all ends.

the movie follows two sides: one army whose orders are to deliver a nuke and the other army determined to stop them and try to get the nuke away from them. As luck has it, a comet nears the earth and causes a time rift sending the two groups of soldiers back to 1572. The two sides are now in confusion as to where their nuke has gone to and how to return home.

While in years past they're robbed by what appears to be a common thief, but then they all realize the person is General Lee, a famous general who kept Korea from being invaded by japan. The war film now becomes a comedy, trying to find different ways for Lee to prepare for battle, and how modern weapons can somehow be carried over to ancient times. Meanwhile, the brilliant scientist might have found a way to travel home given the comet's time cycle is 433 years, but what about the Nuke, and who win wind up victorious in the oncoming battle against the barbarians that threaten the lives of them and General Lee? Its very gripping and leaves you wondering what the outcome will be.

The movie would have to be considered war comedy mostly, as the clash of different things in time is what most of the humor focuses on, but its not just that. Some moments like the big battles are very intense with bloody sword fights. The story is great, and while its got some serious moments, its easy to follow and anyone can enjoy it. Go to see this if you're looking for something different and new. Its an original and clever idea thats pulled off nicely.


Did producers of the new South Korean film "Heaven's Soldiers" foresee that the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program would resume in late July? The plot of "Heaven's Soldiers" revolves around a group of South and North Korean soldiers who make an unexpected trip through time to the past, while their countries are in feud with the United States over their joint development of a nuclear warhead.

From director Min Jun Gi comes the 2005 film Heaven's Soldiers, a nationalistic, military-themed time travel adventure filled with equal parts action and comedy! The story centers on a group of North and South Korean soldiers who find themselves flung back in time just as their respective countries are locked in a tense standoff with the United States over the status of a jointly produced nuclear warhead. The film kicks off with stock footage of the historic meeting between the two Korean leaders in June 2000, using this real life moment as a springboard for the film's fictional premise that North and South Korea secretly formed an alliance, agreeing to co-produce their very own weapon of mass destruction! But when the two Koreas decide to hand over the warhead to the United States, North Korean military officer Kang Min Gil (Kim Seung Woo) decides to take matters into his own hands and not only steal the weapon with the help of a band of private soldiers but kidnap the female South Korean scientist (Kong Hyo Jin) who helped create it as well! Things get even more difficult for Kang as South Korean Navy Officer Park Jeong Woo (Hwang Jung Min) is sent by his superiors to capture the rogue soldier and reclaim the weapon. In the midst of a battle on the DMZ, the soldiers are suddenly transported through time thanks to the appearance of a mysterious comet.

In a blink of the eye, the soldiers find themselves trapped in the 16th century, a dark time in Korean history, which saw its countrymen spending most of their time battling off the advances of foreign invaders. After defeating a band of looters with their high-powered machine guns, the time displaced soldiers are hailed as conquering heroes by the locals. Dubbed "Heaven's Soldiers," the group ends up meeting Yi Sun Shin (Park Joong Hoon), the real life admiral who led Korea to victory against the Japanese.

However, the legendary Yi isn't quite what the soldiers expected. Rather than the mythical hero of legend he's thought to be in the present day, the Yi the soldiers encounter is actually a thief and a rascal, one who can't even pass the officer's exam! Shocked that their hero could be so lax in his studies, the soldiers give Yi a crash course in military education, all in the hopes he'll fulfill his destiny! But will Yi discover his true calling in time or will he doom both himself and his beloved country? Find out in Heaven's Soldiers, a crowd-pleasing time travel epic!


When I first read the story, I thought it would be fun to see an ordinary thief change into a legendary general! But what I have seen is more than just a comedy! It is truly an epic on small scale! And a comment on the political situation of North and South Korea! The excellent combination of humor,drama,a little bit of science fiction and a lot of action makes this a movie not to miss! The cast is great and the story is wonderful! It never get's boring! Before you know it the movie is over! The beautiful cinematography and some nice cgi effects make the viewing experience even more intense and pleasurable! I know that some viewers will be put off by the time travel aspect in the story! It is only used as a tool! The focus is on the characters and their actions! The spectacular finale is truly a heroic bloodshed! I enjoyed "Heaven's Soldiers" immensely and I think that it certainly deserves a higher rating than it got! Trust me this is an amazing movie!


It looks like the movie didn't cause much money, but it did cause the director a lot of thinking to put his thoughts into this comedy. The movie express a nationalism idea in the director's own opinion: unite with the north and go against the foreigners. The comic parts are mostly from the portrayal of south and north (the north officer always stand on the left,north Korean soldiers' arrogance...) I love the ending very much, when Admiral Lee's 13 ships had to face the 300 ships from Japan (a real battle in history which Koreans won), he motivated his sailors: as we are united, there's nothing can stop us. Which is the idea the director wants to tell his country men. Korea is a smaller country compare to any potential opponent, it has to be united.


The film is a wonderful portrayal of a dark triangle involving identical twins who form an elegant acrobatic circus act and eventually seek revenge on an unfaithful women. They plan a "perfect crime" on which the film turns. I have not seen the film in about 50 years. It used to show up on local TV quite frequently in the 50's but seems to have disappeared and unjustly so. I only hope it still exists? If it is available I do urge it's viewing.

Lom plays the dual role of the twin brothers and this , in itself , is cleverly handled. The O'Henry like ending is affecting and again gives the film a further degree of individuality.


This was a fine example of a British film, well acted and directed, an excellent storyline and no slip ups or confusion as sometimes arises in plots like this. Herbert Lom gives a spellbinding performance as the twins, and the rest of the cast are marvellous too. Everyone gives 100% and we enjoyed it very much. It should have got some awards. Please do watch it, if you get the chance. you wont be disappointed. A fine cast of actors doing a brilliant job with a first class director. Superb. I had not been aware of this director before and as he wrote the script too, (oh yes, I forgot to say excellent script) he has excelled himself. Why no proper recognition ? I had not even heard of this film before. It was shown at a quarter to three in the morning! The photography was well done and the matching was excellent too. This film should be acknowledged as a classic British film.


A story of a twin trapeze act who fall out over a winning lottery ticket and a girl. A wonderful story and cast with an unusual and unpredictable end. This is my favourite film of all time and the brilliant Herbert Lom gives his best performance to date as Jules and Georges. I definitely recommend it.10/10


I remember seeing this film some forty years ago. I was still at school and found it curiously absorbing. In fact I could'not stop telling everybody about it for days afterwards. I recall the film creating an atmosphere at once dark and foreboding. There was an understated menace in the air much as in the opening pages of a story by H.P. Lovecraft. The plot was relatively straight forward but with a delicious twist at the end that has been likened to a tale by O. Henry. What carries the film is the sublime performance of Herbert Lom. Now there was an actor who played the archetypal smooth villain of his day. In fact I cannot think of any other actor who so consummately conveyed villainy with such effective "European" sophistication and grace. A role portrayed to perfection in "The Ringer" with Donald Wolfit, "the Golden Salamander" and later, "Northwest Passage" with Kenny More and Lauren Bacall. Shades of Conrad Veidt of an earlier generation. Herbert Lom was a busy actor who appeared in numerous film and theatre productions during the fifties and sixties. Few will remember that he took the lead role when "The King and I" first came to London at Drury Lane (I think) and that he was the natural choice for the Harry Lime role in the radio version of "The Third Man" (circa, 1951). His brooding "European" looks and deep and accented speech were instantly recognised by the audiences of his day and although never a major top-of-the-bill star, was a respected member of any cast (e.g. "and with Herbert Lom as Napoleon") and by todays standards would be considered an A-list celebrity.


I saw this movie in England when it first came out and it has stayed with me ever since. It is an unusual mystery about which twin actually committed murder. The ending is a surprise and the acting of two parts by Herbert Lom made him one of my favourite actors long before he became well known in the Pink Panther series.


Do not listen to the morons who dont find the spirit within this great movie... if you have any love for the Finalfantasy games watch this! Ok so its oldscool(Visuals,music,plot...)but so are the games. The Japhumor is crazy as in most anime but their is peace to be found here also. The english dub is ok. As with the games,the thing you will be left with after seeing this is a Good,Chill feeling that you will want to experience again and again...


I saw this a few years ago, and remember little except my poor reaction to it. It struck me as very childish, with one-dimensional characters, and an unoriginal idea. 'Save the crystals, save the world' was already getting old in the video game series by this point, and it felt like an attempt to milk something popular. You'll probably like this a lot more if you are younger, and Final Fantasy-obsessed, but it really wasn't worth the rental for me.


A young steelworker earns a scholarship to Yale, where he eventually joins the prestigious football team. But will he ever get to HUDDLE with the best player's upper-class sister?

Ramon Novarro, MGM's chameleon star of the 1920's & '30's, gives this minor film the old college try, but is ultimately defeated by the plot & story line. His acting is good, as usual, and he even gets to sing a little, but he's simply too old to be playing a university football hero (he turned 33 in 1932).

The real difficulty, however, is that the film tries for some degree of social consciousness in its dealing with class struggle, but the framework is just too flimsy for such a weighty, albeit noble, subject. It is difficult to get much solemnity out of a sports film, especially when sprinkled with such ludicrous scenes as Novarro drunk in a public restroom or fist fighting with his coach. The game sequences seem a trifle interminable and MGM didn't help by giving the movie rather cheap production values.

One expects action & romance from a Ramon Novarro picture, not a message film, but the Studio was obviously losing interest in its star. Novarro had become a relic from a bygone era, his private life was always a worry to the front office, and by 1935 his career at MGM would be over.

Novarro's costars, although rather boisterous, are ultimately defeated by the script as well. Pretty Madge Evans is the girl Novarro pines after for four years. John Arledge plays Novarro's loyal roommate; their scenes together, perhaps unconsciously, tend to be a mite gynandrous. Frank Albertson (an actor who deserved major stardom, but never achieved it) is a college buddy, while Kane Richmond is Novarro's nemesis.

Ralph Graves, who was actually a year younger than Novarro, gives a fine performance as Yale's football coach. Una Merkel is a Southern doll with an almost impenetrable accent. Henry Armetta & Ferike Boros add more than a dash of ethnicity as Novarro's Italian-American parents.

Finally, Ramon Novarro still remains the principle reason to watch most of his MGM sound films. As a young immigrant, he had persevered over much hardship to become a major silent screen star. Charming & talented, it is a shame that today Novarro is remembered chiefly for the manner of his death rather than his contribution to American movies.


After hearing mostly negative comments about this film, I was impressed. It offered an interesting view into the elitist collegiate atmosphere of the time, was frank about relationships, and had another fine performance by Ramon Novarro.

Novarro looked more convincing as a student than some of the other players, and yet was thirty-three at the time. He certainly looked more age-appropriate than William Haines in West Point, and Haines was five years Novarro's junior when that film was made. I liked that fact that Novarro's character was made more life-like by conflicting traits as well. He was studious, promiscuous, proud, humble, a "dirty" fighter, and yet devoted to "weak" friends as well. Madge Evans' presence was not appreciably felt in this film, although her close-up during the commencement scene was a true eye-opener for me. Never had I seen her look so beautiful! Also, after seeing Martha Sleeper's "vamp," I'd love to view more films of hers.

What interested me greatly was the depiction of college life in the film. How these snobbish upper-crust sorts had, at the same time, a code of honor, and would fill noble places in society is an interesting question. There were times when their treatment of Novarro was revolting, but yet they seemed good fellows at the end--how true in life. I doubt that the same sense of honor and tradition is present at these blue-blood universities today.

I agree with the other viewer about the sound recording. It was abominable in some scenes, particularly when one had the already daunting task of penetrating thick Italian accents.

A viewer should be pleased by this film. However, the fact that its reach exceeded its grasp should be no surprise when one considers that MGM through second-rate films destroyed the careers of its leading silent actors Gilbert, Haines, Keaton, and yes, Ramon Novarro. If they had really cared (say as much as they cared about Robert Montgomery's films), this film would be more focused.


When MGM acquired the rights to Show Boat for the Arthur Freed unit, no expense was spared in making this one of the most expensive films the studio had ever produced. A whole riverboat was constructed as well as the Natchez landing was completely built on a location on a lake which served as turn of the last century Mississippi river locale.

No doubt also that Howard Keel and Kathryn Grayson sang beautifully together. Those three Jerome Kern ballads, Make Believe, Why Do I Love You? and You Are Love were just written for their voices.

Ava Gardner is a beautiful and fetching Julia. Annette Warren's dubbing of Julie LaVerne's songs Can't Help Loving That Man and Bill perfectly matched Ava's speaking voice.

The problem I've always felt with this version is that Howard Keel is too strong a character to be playing Gaylord Ravenal who is essentially a weak personality. Allan Jones in the 1937 version perfectly captured Ravenal's frailty.

That 1937 version also had two people from the original Broadway production who made those parts all their own, Helen Morgan as Julie and Charles Winninger as Captain Andy. And it had the incomparable Paul Robeson though William Warfield is a fabulous Joe.

The singing of the Jerome Kern-Oscar Hammerstein II score is in the major leagues. The rest of the film however is in a minor key when compared with the earlier sound version with Allan Jones and Irene Dunne.


I had only recently settled down to watching this one which has just been issued on DVD in France. In a frustrating sense, this film shows that perfection is unattainable ! It has perfect lighting, perfect costumes, perfect music, perfect acting but oh, the plot is just so dull and lacking in substance ! But because of the rest I give it a high-ish rating. It's true, though, the plot is really lacking in spice and substance but this is to a large extent compensated for by a mixture of fantastic sets and great musical performances. Indeed, I am very impressed by the particular attention given to lighting by the cameraman ! It seems they avoided filming at midday and always used early morning or early evening sunlight with long, sharp and distinct shadows with yellowish tones. This plus the splendid technicolor is a feast for the eyes. I would be curious to have known exactly where it was filmed. Was it really the Mississippi river ? I also enjoyed those scenes in the cotton plantations. Musically of course, the film is a masterpiece and though my favourite tune is "Make Believe", I was extremely impressed by the version of Ol Man River sung by the actor William Warfield who must have had one of the most brilliant voices I have ever heard ! I confess to never having heard of this gentleman prior to seeing the film and had imagined the singer to be Paul Robeson. So I checked out WW on the internet and it appears he was a very respected and educated gentleman. To cut a long story short, I was impressed by his mellow voice and by his towering physique. Ava Gardner was too very beautiful and I also enjoyed seeing dear old Agnes Moorhead whom I have always appreciated in films. So despite a weak plot which sometimes failed to keep my attention, this film is a genuine masterpiece on most other levels and deserves viewing at least once, if only for William Warfield's performance of Ol'Man River.


Please people! Try not to over-analyze, like so many others have done in the other comments about this fabulous Techno-color classic from the early 1950's Hollywood. It isn't supposed to be a carbon-copy remake of the older 1936 version nor is it supposed to be making any sort of PC statements about race! Times changed and so did the attitudes and views of most americans, especially after WWII. Take it for what it is! A great musical wrapped around a love story. Beautiful lead actress, strong male lead and awesome broadway style tunes sung by great voices, especially William Warfield's "Old man River"!


I've been a Showboat fan for a long time. I've seen it live on stage 5 times as well as the 1936 version and the PBS version. After watching the MGM version again on TCM, I decided that it is almost impossible to make a satisfying version of a Showboat movie.

Its strange to say, but I think "opening up" the stage version took away some of the intimacy a live version has. Showboat's greatness does not come from the standard boy meets girl - boy loses girl - boy gets girl storyline. It comes from the music and on stage a number can start with one guy on the docks lamenting the suffering endured along the Mississippi and end with a chorus of voices singing about Ol Man River. The numbers themselves "open up" to fill the stage. But no movie can do that to the same effect.

But my biggest problem with this version is the abbreviation of the story and the musical numbers. The songs Kern and Hammerstein wrote deserve to be fleshed out in all their operatic grandeur. The first act contains what I consider the best back to back to back musical numbers in Broadway history with Make Believe - Ol' Man River - Can't Help Lovin Dat Man and the movie rearranges them out of order and only River is fleshed out. Can't Help should be an 8 minute number with the chorus joining in at the end instead of the barely noticed number in the movie.

Because the music is among the best ever written, it is really hard to make a bad version of Showboat. I'll watch this movie whenever it is on TV but if you really love Showboat, get the EMI 3 CD recording with Frederica Von Stade and Jerry Hadley. And go see it live when you have the chance.


Don't worry about comparisons with the original, supposedly weak story line, etc, etc - just suspend belief and enjoy it as a musical.

The key vocalists are absolutely first rate: Howard Keel, Kathryn Grayson and William Warfield were at the tops of their games here. The superb, effortless vocals from Keel and Grayson are lessons on how to sing - you'll never hear 'Make Believe' sung better than this.

William Warfield's version of 'Old Man River' is just magic. People usually talk about Paul Robson in the same breath as 'Old Man River' but none of Robson's renditions can match this performance. Warfield is a true bass (Robson was a bass-baritone) and delivers this song with magnificent power and resonance. Warfield is The Man.

Sit back and enjoy the music...


Show Boat is one of my favourite musicals, and I admit to being a solid Howard Keel fan! However, the one thing that gets me, and why they haven't returned it to the original film track, is the dubbing of Ava Gardner's voice.

I have a copy of the soundtrack on good old vinyl and have Ava singing her own songs on it and I have to say, in my humble opinion, that she actually did a better job of it, than the person who dubbed her.

Maybe in 1951 Ava's rendition was a bit.... too hot for the censors, but today, never. Why can't we have Ava's voice back on the film??? What do the rest of you think?


I really liked this version of Show Boat. Some people negatively compare Ava Gardner with Helen Morgan, who played Julie in the 1936 film version as well as on Broadway, but I think Miss Gardner was fantastic. Her scene in the dressing room when she realizes Magnolia is on stage singing "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" was truly heartbreaking, especially when she starts drinking. Her "Bill" was also really quite moving (although dubbed by Annette Warren,) especially when she acknowledges that her ring finger no longer has a wedding ring on it. The 1936 version of the film is a real gem and should not be missed for Show Boat fans, but this version should not be dismissed either!


Ava Gardner, Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, Marge & Gower Champion all under the sure and competent direction of George Sidney where are they? In which sky are those stars shining now? Maybe only in our memories. This was the golden era of musicals where other giants such as Stanley Donen and Vincente Minnelli as directors and Fred Asteire, Ginger Rogers (a little before), Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse as performers distinguished themselves. This movie is a landmark in the history of musical movies by the beauty of its lyrics and music and dance numbers. And the sceneries of course. Just only to watch (and listen to the song) the sequence where that old tune "Old Man River" is sung is this movie worth to be seen. Usually in these musicals the story is the weakest part of the movie but here it has even enough dramatic depth to interest the viewer. A very good movie in conclusion.


Another of the great musicals I have seen so many times, and wish to comment on it and compare with the original made in 1936 with Irene Dunne and Alan Jones. Although the original is in black and white, the 1951 version is so colorful and story and acting so good and more developed and three-dimensional, that I had a few tears myself. Dancing by Marge and Gower Champion were truly champions. Joe E. Brown as Capt. Hawks plays a much funnier role than Charley Winninger did in 1936. He has such a rubbery face, and I can still hear him saying "Happy New Year". There are eight wonderful songs by Kern and Hammerstein and the best were "Make Believe" and "You Are Love" and "Old Man River" but there were other old goodies, too, like "After The Ball". 8/10


I get goose bumps just thinking of the larger than life opening of this film... Kathryn Grayson was one of the favorite stars of screen musicals during their heyday in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Kathryn Grayson was a visually and vocally striking singer and actress who graced some of the most popular films of the postwar era, including "Anchors Aweigh" (1947) and "Kiss Me Kate" (1953). Blessed with a coloratura soprano from an early age, she was discovered by MGM chief Louis B. Mayer while a teenager, and was signed to a contract without the benefit of a screen test or drama lessons. In this version of Show Boat, Ms. Grayson, plays Magnolia Hawks, the captain's innocent daughter, who falls for the handsome gambler Gaylord Ravenal (Howard Keel). Show Boat is widely considered one of the most influential works of the American musical theatre. As the first true American "musical play", it marked a significant departure from operettas, light musical comedies of the 1890s and early 20th century and the "Follies"-type musical revues that had defined Broadway.

According to The Complete Book of Light Opera, "Here we come to a completely new genre  the musical play as distinguished from musical comedy. Now... the play was the thing, and everything else was subservient to that play. Now... came complete integration of song, humor and production numbers into a single and inextricable artistic entity. The third and (to date) last film version of the Edna Ferber/Jerome Kern/Oscar Hammerstein II musical. (1929, 1936, 1951) One of the few titles I can think of where every version is good! I.B. TECHNICOLOR. Almost a novelty when it was introduced to film in the early 1920's, Technicolor reached its zenith in the 1940's and 50's, when classics like WIZARD OF OZ, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, SNOW WHITE and GONE WITH THE WIND were released using the brilliant, deeply-saturated hues of dye-transfer Technicolor. I.B. (or "imbibition") Technicolor prints are becoming increasingly scarce treasures since Technicolor stopped U.S. production of them in 1974. So tonight's print may be a worn print with some scratches and splices, but the color can not be matched even with today's technology. Finally, Ava Gardner is stunningly beautiful in this film and turns in a tender and heartbreaking performance. Last year on a film run I was able to visit the Ava Gardner Museum in Smithfield, North Carloina, and it was amazing. Well worth the 4 ½ hour drive from Culpeper. And Marge Champion is the only one of the stars from this film that is still alive today at age 90. She plays Ellie May Shipley, the dancer in the red & white striped dress & umbrella. Now sit back and enjoy this old fashioned cruise back in time on MGM's Show Boat!


I know there are many out there who think that Lena Horne would have been better cast as Julie than Ava Gardner was. She was considered for the role and desperately wanted to play it, according to her own commentary on the film from the documentary "That's Entertainment III". Lena had also done a brief turn as Julie in the 1946 Kern biopic, "Till The Clouds Roll By". Lena had, and still has, a wonderful voice and would have been wonderful in the part vocally. With that said, let me say that she would have been miscast in the role of Julie. There is no possible way that Lena Horne could have believably played a woman born to one black and one white parent who is credibly passing as white. With no racism or malice intended, Lena Horne is very obviously a black woman. The whole crux of Julie's story has to do with her attempt to hide her parentage and her marriage to a white man. How could a black woman who "looks" black pull this off? I think MGM was wise to cast Ava Gardner and pass on Lena Horne. It is just too bad that there weren't really any roles written for her during her time at MGM. She proved that she could carry a real part in such films as "Stormy Weather" and "Cabin In The Sky", especially that latter.


I wasn't looking forward to seeing this movie again. I've seen it twice. For some odd reason, and I don't know why I felt it was a chore to see it again (maybe it's because The Musical isn't exactly the most world-changing genre out there). Anyways, once I got IN to watching Show Boat again, I was totally transfixed again! There's just something about it that makes it timeless.. The songs are all top-notch, the singing and dancing are all great, but I think it's the actors that make this version the one to remember. I just love Ava Gardner in this. I TRULY believe she should have got at LEAST a supporting actress nom at the Academy Awards. And what about Howard Keel? Great as always. Yes, everyone, from Joe E. Brown to Gower and Marge Champion look to be having w whoop of a time here. And it's contagious!


"Show Boat" is one of those garish musicals from the 1950s where scope and spectacle dwarfed content and story. It's directed lethargically by George Sidney, as if he thought audiences would be so tickled by the elaborate Technicolor sets and costumes that he could just set up his camera and let it run. Said costumes, though this is supposed to be a period piece, have a distinctly late-40s/early-50s flavor. And Ava Gardner is miscast in her role; she sort of vapidly walks through it with little conviction.

It doesn't even do the sterling musical score justice, which is its greatest crime.

Grade: C-


This Technicolor remake of the famous Kern-Hammerstein musical has been very successful financially over the years due to the fact that its re-releases, frequent TV showings, digital re-mastering,and soundtrack album kept the excellent Universal 1936 film from being seen for a long time. It has its good points, among the best being the beauty of Ava Gardner (who gives one of her best portrayals,although she makes Julie more obviously sexy than either Edna Ferber or Oscar Hammerstein II intended), the sumptuous color photography, the thrilling voice of William Warfield singing "Ol' Man River", the likewise excellent voice of Howard Keel, and the dancing of Marge and Gower Champion. Then we get to the negative points, beginning with mostly indifferent or awful acting, slow pacing, especially in the first thirty minutes, and an atrociously rewritten script, which keeps the basic plot line,but throws out most of Hammerstein's dialogue to make way for some memorably corny lines ("There's still not enough room on this boat for the two of us!"). By doing this, the film makers ruin one of "Show Boat" 's greatest virtues--a libretto good enough to enable the show to stand the test of time. Many other 1920's shows have not, principally because of the quality of the scripts, although their songs remain famous and popular. Both "Show Boat"'s score and libretto are highly regarded today.

In addition,the script for this 1951 film version either waters down or eliminates several hard-hitting elements in the plot which were rendered extremely faithfully in the '36 version, though it would spoil the story, as well as that 1936 film, if I gave away what those moments are. It also manages to reduce an important supporting role, that of Queenie,the black cook, to just two lines and no singing, as well as to eliminate the black chorus, an important element of all the show's stage productions as well as of the 1936 film version. The all-purpose M-G-M chorus substitutes for the black chorus, and they do so offscreen.

Scenically,everything is just too artificial and prettied up-you can tell MGM was deliberately ignoring any historical authenticity,especially in the too elaborate and inaccurate redesigning of the show boat itself as a luxurious self-propelled paddlewheeler.


Good show about a river boat plying it's way from town to town in the old south giving song and dance performances to the entertainment starved locals. Along the way a suave dude who makes his living as a card player meets the show boat owner's daughter and goes off the deep end. Things are great until his old life beckons and he becomes a wanderer again. Well worth seeing with a 2 hanky ending.


I'm not a huge fan of musicals, but I like this one. It isn't so much that I love the story but appreciate the quality of film as well as some of the songs. The acting, cinematography, and every other aspect of this film just screams "quality", as it's a gorgeous and well put together film. In particular, I love hearing OLD MAN RIVER. In this case it's sung by the legendary Paul Robson and he does a magnificent job. However, I think the original film made in the 1930s probably did a better job with this song. But what the original film lacked was color and high quality singing and production values. It was good, but this remake just jumped out of the screen! An exceptional, though a bit old fashioned film.


Maybe I liked it better because I haven't seen a stage production or most of the 1936 movie. (I just saw the "Ol' Man River" and "Can' Help Lovin' Dat Man" sequences from that movie.) But still, this version really wasn't so bad taken just by itself. Even if Ava Gardner is sexier than anyone intended Julie to be, she is still great and truly heartbreaking in the later sequences. Her renditions of "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" and "Bill," with th help of Annette Warren's dubbed-in vocals, manage to be sultry and yet very tender, too. (Indeed on the soundtrack, Ava herself shows us she didn't have a bad voice in outtakes of her singing those songs.) True, the romance between Katharine Grayson and Howard Keel isn't very interesting, and except for "Make Believe," you'll have to yawn through most of their numbers since you can't understand either one of them. But that's more than made up for by fine performances of the Kern-Hammestein score, (except those which are noted). "Ol' Man River" is still extremely powerful and moving, even if the man singing it has a non-existent role in the proceedings, even if he isn't Paul Robeson, and even if it's missing parts. Marge and Gower Champion are in fine form in their numbers, and you can't help but smile during "Life Upon the Wicked Stage," when Marge wears skirts hiked higher than Aly McBeal's... in the 50s! And then there's "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man," "Bill," and "Make Believe." Perhaps in comparison to its predeccesors it' horrible, but maybe it isn't so bad if you jus take it for itself.


I have watched this movie a number of times over the years, mainly because I love the music. I keep hoping that I will also enjoy the movie. Sometimes the music wins, sometimes the movie loses, and I turn it off.

I just caught it again on TV, after a long avoidance. My first thought was, was this movie colorized? The color was so garish, and the depiction of the "colored" farm hands so out of date, that I wondered whether it was actually filmed in the 30s or early 40s, before color, like the original. So I logged on and found out it was actually filmed in 1951, in Technicolor. There is no excuse for the absurd racial stereotypes by then, at least in Hollywood; but then the whole movie is nothing but stereotypes, so I guess it is an equal opportunity offender.

The real problem is there is not much or a script to hold the musical numbers together. The movie starts with music, and the characters are never really introduced. Stuff just starts happening, and you never quite care about any of the characters. You get the impression someone just kept cutting out dialogue from the script to make room for the musical numbers and keep the movie short - 107 minutes - until there was hardly anything left except the bare storyline. Hey, if a film is good, you don't want to shorten it.

And while the melodies are wonderful, the singing is awful. There is far too much vibrato, more, I think, than you would find in most operas.

Next, if you watch the lips of the actors, you get the impression that all the dialogue is dubbed in afterward. And the acting is weird. In the beginning, it is bad because they are supposed to be bad actors on a showboat. But then they become bad actors in a bad B quality movie.

The best thing that could happen to this movie would be to put the soundtrack in a lifeboat and torpedo the movie. It is offensive to blacks, offensive to whites, offensive to music lovers, and most of all, offensive to movie lovers.


Lame 2nd film version of Kern and Hammerstein's awesome jazz opera disappointed me a great deal. I expected a lot more from A. Freed as a producer. Only Keel is well cast, and they don't even have him sing "You are Love." This is just one of the many atrocities, including Ava Gardner limping through a role played definitively by Helen Morgan. Joe E. Brown's face lighting up as he sees his daughter in the bar, tears coming down his face, may haunt me in nightmares.

Only the excellent music of the original musical provides an incentive to watch this film. Universal's 30s version is better, but also not comparable to the musical. This is a case where the scope of the original product is simply too great for a film; even most production of Show Boat as a stage musical skip many of the show's better tunes, especially the jazzier songs Kern supplied for the play's last act, which were intended to show the progress of time.

The most objectionable aspect is the film's racism, which carries Hammerstein's often patronizing but usually "liberal" viewpoint into the area of an insult. By way of illustrating this trend, by which each film version become successively more racist than the original musical, we can look at the opening scene where Julie's jealous admirer takes back his present from Queenie (to whom Julie had given the trinket). In the stage play, the white man accosts Queenie and asks her where she got it, and Queenie refuses to tell him and walks off in a huff. In Universal's film, Hattie McDaniel plays with less dignity, but still shows some anger when the white man demands return of his jewelry. In MGM's color version, however, it has become even more offensive: in this version, the black woman cowers in fear as the big white man simply snatches the necklace off her person. This progression should amply illustrate the degeneration of the script's attitude from Hammerstein's condescending liberalism to MGM's stereotyped racism.

All surface and no substance to this pallid MGM musical product.


'The Garage' is great viewing. If you are past your youth, this will remind you of your younger time, when you had choices to make that would shape your destiny. If you are at that youthful 'turning point' time in your life, you will definitely relate and if you aren't at that place yet, you will learn about the turning points of decision that are soon to be headed your way. 'The Garage' succeeds in evoking many feelings from it's viewer. There are moments of warmth, humor and sadness as well as hopeful expectation and the audience is privy to feel them all. Remember your first love?...your first great loss?...the camaraderie of your best friend?...'The Garage' will bring them all to mind again.


A truly moving story. Wonderful composition of shots and a strong theme make this is a compelling indie movie. Not one to miss! Watch for new faces that demonstrate some sound break-out performances! The filmmakers took great care in crafting this story and it clearly shows as we follow Matt's journey though the film. If you can watch this film at one of the many festivals it has been accepted to, you should. Don't wait for a DVD release, but rather watch it on the big screen. The cinematography alone makes it worthwhile, and the strong story strikes home for most father/son relationships in real life. It can make you reflect on your own personal situation and that is the message of a powerful film.


Just caught this movie at the San Fernando Valley Film Festival and was really taken aback by its quiet power. Very much in the "Stand By Me"/"Last Picture Show"/"Summer of '42" mode, it will hopefully find a wider audience outside the fest circuit. Very well-acted by a mix of newcomers and veteran talent, "The Garage" has a great, evocative look, and subtly brings back its late 1970s, pre-MTV time period. It's one of those universal stories about small town life that anyone who's ever left home--or thought about it, will definitely be moved by. The music and cinematography were impressive, too. Check it out if it lands at a festival or theatre near you.


It took me back to a time of best friends and unlimited opportunities, where the world lay at your feet waiting for you to decide what you wanted to do and where you wanted to go. A time of youth and innocence when the realities of life were still on the distant horizon. A time when your desire for something more in life made you leave the security of friends and family and race to that distant horizon and beyond, to embrace all the possibilities and make them your own.

Well written and well shot, it definitely evoked the pace and feeling of growing up in small town America without sugar coating the experience. I loved it.


Great film.......I laughed, I cried and I've done a lot of thinking and reminiscing since seeing it.

I think anyone can relate to this film about coming of age. It brought me back to a time in my life when people would constantly tell me "these are the best times of your life" when actually I thought they were some of the most confusing and difficult times! Yet some of the things we hated as kids we tend to spend our adult life trying to recapture.

I recommend this film to anyone.....especially anyone who loved where they came from but couldn't wait to grow up and move on.

Go see this film and enjoy!!!


Just watched the movie at the LONG ISLAND INTERNATIONAL FILM EXPO on Long Island, New York. What a great film! More films should be made like this one. Audiences wait for a movie like this to hit the screen as it gives them a reason to feel a film, instead of just watching one. I really enjoyed the story and the depth of the characters. I learned after the film that it was semi-autobiographical of the writer/director Carl Thibault. I also learned that this was his first film, and what a way out of the gate! His direction was flawless and the performances he got from his ensemble cast came together to execute a story that was truly heartfelt! The photography alone is a reason to see this film!


I caught this film this past week at a film festival, and was very happy I did. The film is both well directed, and well acted. It's not edge of your seat entertainment, nor do I imagine it was intended to be. But what it is, is a very effective, believable and absorbing character study that's both technically superb and believable in its execution.

Though he might not look like a conventionally leading man, Gabriel Marantz more than carries the film. He portrayal of the lead character is both believable, and rife with pathos. Solid film and I highly recommend it.


The Garage is the only title that describes the film. I watched it like I was watching my son's in there early adult life. Wondering which path to take. Making their life decisions. To go or to stay. Young people have to make their own friends and life. This film told that story of family,friends, and life decisions (without any profanity), really refreshing. Carl Thibault hit the jackpot with this film and I congratulate him. I understand that Carl is planning another film in the near future. I hope he keeps to the standards that he used in making The Garage. I will look forward to seeing this feature film in more festivals, or perhaps on TV and DVD , so that more people will get to enjoy a time to be remembered. Congratulations to Carl Thibault, the new writer to watch for.


My husband has a 1967 Chevy SS convertible and a 1968 Chevy Impala, and has built a garage as an appropriate temple to his icons. I have never understood why until I saw this film. Skirting devilishly close to cliché, this coming-of-age-movie never succumbs. Instead, every time you think you know what's coming, something a bit different shows up. The characters are real, their agony shared, and their interactions cause laughter and tears. The 35 mm film and natural lighting provide an appropriate texture to this real-life, grease-on-you-face experience. Watching this movie was like flipping through a scrapbook of everytown USA and spending a day in your past. Even those of us who did not grow up in a small town have small towns inside us. The music was original (nice guitar work; some really good rock) and the acting brilliant for such young actors. I wanted my husband, father and son to see it immediately.


It was so refreshing to see a movie containing real life experiences. No offense to the sci-fi or action heroes of today. We have just become so busy, and fast paced, we forgot the quieter days of yesteryear. When, what you had was just right, and family and friends were most important. The story was something so many can relate to including myself. There were no cell phones, mp3's, DVD's or cars that have the directions right in them. It was a story of trials and triumphs that was very well told. Two thumbs up to the writer. He has a story that is told all unto often today. The acting and the directing were terrific.They put me back to a time of my youth that has been long since forgotten.


Well Done! An Excellent Showing for Thibault's first Directing/Writing Debut. Great Acting, Great Cinematography, and a good story. A cable network should definitely pick this movie up.

Below is some info I googled on how to write a movie review. I included this useful info to meet the IMDb number of lines minimum for posting a review. I think my concise comments were enough. Extraneous comments are unnecessary.

How to write a movie review, a guide

Writing a movie review is a great way of expressing your opinion of a movie. The purpose of most movie reviews is to help the reader in determining whether they want to watch, rent or buy the movie. The review should give enough details about the movie that the reader can make an informed decision, without giving anyway any essentials such as the plot or any surprises. Below are our guidelines and tips for writing a good movie review.

1. Watch the movie

The first step in writing the review is to watch the movie. Watch the movie in a relaxed environment you are familiar with. You do not want to be distracted by an unfamiliar room. Watching the movie a second time will help you absorb a lot more detail about the movie. Most movie reviewers take notes as they watch the movie review.

2. Give your opinion

Most movie reviewers will give their opinion of the movie. This is important as the reviewer can express the elements of the movie they enjoyed or disliked. However, as in all good journalism, the reviewer should also give impartial details, and allow the reader to make their own mind over an issue the reader liked or disliked. Opinions should be explained to allow the reader to determine whether they would agree with your opinion .

Many regular movie reviewers will develop a following. If one can find a reviewer who shares a similar taste in films, one can confidently follow the reviewers recommendations.

3. Who is your audience?

You need to consider who your likely readers are. Writing a movie review for children requires a different approach than if writing for a movie club. Ensure you report on the factors that matter to your likely audience.

4. Give an outline

Give the outline of the movie, but don't give away essential details such as the end or any surprises. If there is a big surprise you want to entice readers by telling them something special happens, just don't say what.

5. Actors

If the movie contains actors, as most do, detail who is starring in the movie and how well you think they acted.

6. Structure

Did the movie follow a regular predictable story line, or did it get you thinking like a Quentin Tarantino movie?

7.Cinematography and lighting

Give details about how well the movie was shot and directed. Was the lighting good in the moody scenes? 8. Music

Did the movie have its own score like Koyaanisqatsi or ET, or did it feature songs from popular artists?

9. Read, read and read

Read and check your review thoroughly. It can be embarrassing to find errors in your work after it has been published. This is especially important for reviews that will be published on the Internet, as search engines are always looking for the correct spellings of key words.


In this true coming-of-age story, young Matt is ready to leave his one-horse town and travel with his best friend Schultz. The only thing keeping him in town is his father's garage, which isn't doing good business. He doesn't want to abandon his father, and decides to stick around a little longer (of course, falling for the new girl only helps solidify his decision).

Schultz wants to leave more than anything, because he's in an abusive home, but Matt still doesn't want to fully make up his mind. Only after a tragic event does Matt finally realize that he has to look out for himself and not for others.

"The Garage" delivers in every aspect. You're drawn into the story and equally as drawn to Matt and the predicament he finds himself in. Its stirring, moving, and profound in a very low-key way. Definitely worth a viewing.


"The Garage" shows life as it as. The cast talked to each other rather than at each other. The viewer felt that the cast was just as interested in what the other characters in this film had to say as the audience was. This movie wasn't like many of todays' movies are, where the cast just recites lines. The writing resembled Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, it depicted real people in real situations.It showed life as it is, not as many want life to be. Carl Thibault, as the writer and director has raised the bar for future low budget and independent movies. The directing couldn't have been better. There wasn't an unbelievable scene in this movie.The movie flowed just as real life flows,with good and bad times. I personally thought Mr. Thibault was an older gentleman, with more years of personal life experience to draw upon, as he was able to depict in his writing and directing, more realism then most big name writers and directors with "Major credits" show in their movies. The cinematography was also very good, watching the movie one didn't feel that they were in a movie theater, but in the scene with the characters; which is where the cinematography in a movie should take its' audience, but often doesn't. "The Garage" is worthy of a major release, and Mr. Carl Thibault has proved to be deserving of attention by the film industry powers that be, as both a writer and director. I'd give this movie a higher rating but one should always feel that there is room for improvement.


These reviews were given by Moviegoers after recent film festival screenings...they were posted on various web-sites...I hope they don't mind me posting them here.

1) I thought this movie was a great depiction of many small town people and their lives when they turn teenagers. Many are so used to being around that small net of people, that they find it difficult to pack up, leave, and follow their own dreams. The Garage does a great job at portraying the life of a kid that is stuck between leaving or staying, and the choice might seem easy to some of us, but we are able to see that it is very difficult. I truly enjoyed this film and could not take my eyes of the screen....

2) This is a great movie about the relationship between a father and his adult son. It focuses on the dilemma of the son, Matt, who plans to break away from his home life and find his place in the world. Many things keep happening that keep him from leaving home. He becomes motivated to leave when his friend, who was supposed to go with him, dies. This enables the young man to decide to leave home. Through out the movie, the central theme was the father-son relationship. Not only was the main character struggling to tell his father that he wants to leave home, but, the father of his best friend is violent toward him. The end of the movie wraps this theme up in a way that I thought was unique. It ends by showing the viewer Matt's relationship with his son in the future. Although it is a bit lengthy, the movie is a delightful, yet sad, story about breaking away from the family and finding one's own path.

3) The Garage. The fact that the story is a coming of age story set in 1970's small town Texas should not deter you from seeing this film. The cinematography is wonderful, the acting is great, and if you think seeing another film of this genre is close to torture, then you really should see what Carl Thibault has created, breathing fresh, new life into the genre. This film took the SoCal award for Best Screenplay  catch this film at a festival near you to see why

4) This film succeeds on so many levels, it is difficult to review. Perhaps it is best to start with what it does not do. While telling an "every town" coming-of-age story, the film never succumbs to cliché. Somehow it invokes the "automobile as vehicle of redemption" in such a visceral, physical way that you can smell the grease and feel it on your skin. The same film on video would have been a disappointment. The grain of the film itself adds texture. I immediately thought of a dozen people from three generations who I feel need to see this movie--for the simple but heartrending truths it tells, for the reminiscences it stirs, for the music (original and fantastic), and for the acting (surprising given the youth of the actors). Bravo--an American classic.

5) Saw this feature film at a festival in CA earlier this year. I really enjoyed it. Growing up in a small town, I could definitely relate to the main character and what was pushing/pulling him. For me, there was something nostalgic about the viewing experience. In my mind, this film is deserving of its many accolades. Bravo indeed.

6) Writer/Director Carl Thibault has made a really good film. I just watched this movie at the San Joaquin Film Festival and it blew me away. The basic story is not new. Set in a small town in Texas in the late 70s, the main character, Matt, must make the most important choice of his life. He can stay buried in the going-nowhere job of mechanic in his father's run-down auto repair garage or he can escape to the outside world and rise above the dead end life he's destined for. This film is beautifully photographed, acted, directed, written, edited, and scored. It never has that feel of low budget. Thibault's excellent film is independent cinema at its best. I actually give this picture 4 and a half stars. (out of 5 stars)


Great cast (except for one huge exception) and some nice shots of a beautiful landscape, but otherwise this movie is enormously flawed.

Why am I going out of my way to write a critique? Am I just mean? Perhaps, but I have some thoughts that I think are worth sharing, or at least I have a bone to pick because I feel I am owed some time back.

This story is unbelievably boring. It is like watching concrete grow or like watching bolts turn. Hardly anything of interest happens. The only compelling aspect is the family's predicament, but sadly that isn't the focus, and it doesn't satisfactorily change.

Any time something seemingly central is about to happen, something else unrelated and peripheral happens instead.

There is no cause and effect. When the main character finds his dad among a group of men sharing a hooker, he does nothing, which is weird. That would be the perfect time for the main character to rethink his loyalty to his dad, which would help him decide to agree to leave town right away. The central conflict is that the main character's best friend wants to leave town as soon as possible, and the main character doesn't quite yet. His excuse is that he wants to help out his dad. Once he finds out that his dad isn't the man he thought he was, he should change his mind.

Also, the main character's best friend says he needs to get out of town because he can no longer withstand his father's abuse. It would be so much more powerful if he is ultimately beaten to incapacitation by his father, rather than being hit by a car. His father is the looming danger. Having his father beat him to death would make the rising stakes culminate, and it would make the main character's plea "Just one more week..." so much more meaningful.

There are peripheral and loose ends that never tie in. This movie needs to be much tighter.

Compounding the torture of the boring story, the plot flaws and the dangling ends is the unbelievably awful performance by the actress Tania Ramonde. Her performance might be the worst on-screen performance I have seen in years, if not ever.

I don't blame her; I blame the director.

How could the director think that her oddly wandering eyes and contrived "sensuality" (I put it in quotes because I do not find her to be sexy at all) are pleasing to either the story or to an audience's eyes? I had to hide my eyes. I really did.

Also, her character just appears out of nowhere. Why is she walking around this strange and desolate town all alone so late at night? Why is she dressed like she lives in modern day Beverly Hills? And if this town is so small, how come she and the main character do not know each other before this night when she just walks up out of the darkness?

This brings me to another point about the setting: Where are the stores and the cars and the people? Was this project so low budget that they couldn't afford any props or extras? It's like a ghost town, except without the ghosts.

In summary, I care about the plight of the family, and I think that most of the acting is quite admirable. I just think that the story is clichéd, boring and long-winded and the acting by the ingénue is...I won't be rude and say it again because I don't want to burst her bubble. Like I said, I blame the director.

All in all, I give this movie a 3.


Half-decent acting, nice cinematography- story wasn't plotted well, characters entered and left with little to no explanation or foreshadowing or really any reason. Story possibly overshadowed by possibly that these are memories of the writer/director, and not enough time was spent making it wholly understandable to an audience with no prior knowledge of his memories. Very anti-climactic, ambiguous rationalizing- and a still shot of space. Main character's thrust not very well explained other than generic "leaving the farm" type of moment at the beginning, not enough tie-ins to previous reinforcing principles and moments earlier in the story. Hoped for more- 3/10


Quagmire completes the "Queequeg Trilogy", the three episodes from season three that feature the tiny dog that Scully adopts. Quagmire sets the mood for the show right away with Scully's facial expressions. Mulder takes Scully out to the middle of nowhere on a Saturday to a wet, rainy, miserable place. Gillian Anderson does the perfect job in showing how bad Scully does not want to be there. She actually looks like she's in pain, she is suffering so bad. Some interesting things of note from this episode: We get to see Scully drive a boat for the first time in the series. I thought the shot of Scully chasing the dog leash was well done. And once again, I must say how miserable it must have been to shoot in Vancouver some of the time. Quagmire looks so wet and cold, and the actors just look miserable, which really helps for this particular episode. What makes this episode so good is that when the agents get stranded out on a rock in the middle of the lake, they have a real in depth discussion about Mulder's reasons and motives for chasing monsters all over. Scully compares him to Ahab from 'Moby Dick'. We get to learn a bit more as to what drives Mulder and how Scully feels about Mulder's ambitions. The show has a cool final shot that summarizes this episode quite well. Get stuck in Quagmire!


Quagmire didn't used to be one of my favorite episodes until I began to enjoy the humor of the X-Files more. I love this episode for the many in-jokes and the great Mulder and Scully dialogue. Especially when they get stranded on the rock near the end and their conversation runs from cannibalism to Moby Dick to metaphors about Mulder and a peg leg. One of the better in-jokes of the episode is the reappearance of the stoner kids from War of the Coprophages. "Oh... No..." Another in-joke which references back to Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose is that Scully brings along the dog Queequeg who she adopted when the original owner dies in that episode. Unfortunately the dog meets its demise in this episode. Interestingly both of these in-jokes reference back to episodes written by the great comedy episode writer Darrin Morgan however this particular episode is not written by him. It is written by Chris Carter and Kim Newton. Possibly a tribute to a good writer or perhaps he was involved with the Story Editing as he was with so many other episodes. While not necessarily one of the better episodes as far as creepiness or paranormal this is one of the funner episodes to watch. It is tame enough to use as an episode to break others in to the show. I give it a 9 out of 10.


I visit Loch Ness every year and can confirm that Quagmire is refreshingly realistic about the nature of lake monster hunting - getting soaked to the skin in the middle of nowhere and buying tacky souvenirs. Kim Manners' direction is beautiful, dragging all the misery and despair out of every raindrop and wet pair of jeans. The script is tight and full of lovely little moments, the not-as-daft-as-they-look locals who believe in the monster as long as it sells merch are especially funny and accurate. Chris Ellis and Timothy Webber give the principals stirling support, both giving vibrant performances that are a joy. I was always disappointed that there was never an X File set at Loch Ness - it seemed such an obvious thing to do - but Quagmire is a very close second best.


Yet another strong Season 3 entry.

The reason why this episode worked so well was because of the solid writing. The dialog stayed sharp and amusing.

But, it also worked as a scare episode. it wasn't really creepy, but some scenes did work as a nice, gory episode. My favorite being the scene diver. Which was also a pretty humorous scene that scene included the two weedheads from 'War Of Coprophages'.

My favorite scene of the entire episode was definitely after Mulder ans Scully sank and got stuck up on a rock. That particular scene is what makes this episode so memorable. Some excellent interaction between those two. the funniest bit was when they got rescued and they realized how close they were to the shore. Hilarious.

I liked the alligator twist, and that there WAS a Big Blue there as well. it could have gone either way and I would've been happy. but they took both ways.

This episode deserves FOUR stars. Poor Queequeg though.


I just finished watching my DVD of The Immortal and it was not that bad. Like with anything Lorenzo Lamas is in.. you have to watch it with a open mind. Its no Renegade, but it was not intended that way. Goodwin and Sara really hold the show together. I have seen the Highlander series, yes Im sure they borrowed the idea, but its different in my opinion. The Pilot was good part 1 and 2 and with Brett Hart in some of the episodes was great... they should have had him in more of them. The flashbacks were great probably the best part of this series. The acting was typical for Lamas, but like I said Goodwin and Sara smoothed things out. I can now see why the show did not last, towards the end the writing was very bad and some of the episodes were long and had too many holes in the plot. I think if this show came out right after Renegade went off the air in 97 it would have gone at least 3 seasons. It had a good start, but with poor writing and a new era (year 2000)it just could not hold a audience no longer.. If you are a Lamas fan , this is a must see for you... The intro is very cool to the show...


The only reason to watch this show is to watch Dominic Keating being wickedly evil as the arch-demon Mallos. He's only in 6 of the 22 episodes. This was one of Keating's pre-Enterprise sci-fi gigs (which include Buffy, SU2 and GvsE.) The rest of the series seriously sucks. Lamas is wooden. The character Goodwin is annoying. The character Sara is pathetic. This is another show that COULD have been great. Too bad. Now the pilot (Demons of the Night parts one and two) is out on video. Cashing in on Keating's new found fame no doubt. Well, they might as well make as much money as they can on this turkey. Keating's probably the only one who'll have a career until this is gone and forgotten.


I went into this film knowing nothing about the comic Lenny Bruce, and after watching this film I have already added two of his CDs to my Wish List. I am eager to hear more, to listen to his words, and be intrigued by how his thoughts are still relevant in today's society. This was a beautiful film made in 1974. The decision by director Bob Fosse to film it completely in black and white was brilliant. Hoffman and Perrine's chemistry is brilliant as well as their performances. The power of this man is vividly demonstrated through this film, leaving you with questions answered as well as a desire to hear more. This was such a captivating feature. From the opening sequence of words spewing from a mouth to the final shot of Lenny Bruce, I was glued to my seat.

To begin, the cinematography was better than most feature films. Fosse knew what he was doing and did it with the greatest of ease. His choice to film completely in black and white really helped me hear the words that Bruce spoke instead of just being involved in the colors that surrounded him. The black and white feature gave Hoffman the ability to create a human from his character and take us away from Hoffman and into the mind of comic Lenny Bruce. The shots that Fosse used also assisted with building this compelling story. Every shot is important in this film, and Fosse does a great job of demonstrating and explaining the "why" and "where" of a scene. This was his first and only non musical, and he was triumphant. The way that the story works in a pseudo-documentary style was impeccable. While you are never quite told who the person is behind the camera, you do get that raw emotion from the actors as if you were watching a real documentary. There was just so much emotion that Fosse pulled from his troupe in this film that you could only watch in amazement. It also left the door open to the question of who is behind the camera. With the words that Bruce said nightly in his show, I couldn't help but think of the possibility of government conspiracy. Maybe I am way off, but there was that aura of "cover-up" throughout this film. Even the final sequence gives off that sense.

BAM  Powerful cinematography is right in front of you, but whom do we have in the center of the camera? None other than a very young and fresh Dustin Hoffman. This film really showcased his talents. While he had several films before this one that brought him into the spotlight, I thought that he went above and beyond for this film. He really transformed himself into the character. Some of my favorite moments with Hoffman in Lenny was when he thinks about the nurse the first time, when Honey calls asking for money, and when he asks the Judge to sentence him now instead of going through the trial. The vision of defeat was spectacular. You see in this film why Hoffman is considered one of the greats of Hollywood. Valerie Perrine, also a young actress at the time, was immaculate. Her portrayal of Honey needs to go in the history books. Actresses today could take a moment or two to learn from this dramatic actress. These two actors really brought this film together. They took you deep into the life of this radical thinker and kept you nestled deeply inside of him. They shined greatly, and the Academy saw it too!

BAM  Cinematography, BAM  award winning acting, what can be the final BAM? How about Lenny Bruce? Born well after his death, I had never even heard of the man, but the words that I witnessed from this film from his mouth shocked me. Not so much because of the shock value that surrounded them, but just how relevant his work is still today. As homosexuality becomes a staple in our community and society, Lenny's comments on the teachers in this film seemed like topics we are still talking about today. He was way ahead of his time, and I think that is why people feared him. Living with an English teacher, I am constantly involved with the English language, but I am also shown information about those that have no interest because they do not see how it relates to "real" life. I am also aware of how little respect English gets as daily we hear of schools cutting back on their Literature studies to help support their sports program, or how the first way to cut back spending is to close libraries. These are sad days that we live in, and if only people could see how powerful words can be in defending yourself and explaining the world, I think we would see a rebirth. If I had the option to fight with a loaded gun or an aggressive dictionary, I think you can see which I would choose. Lenny Bruce did no harm to anyone, he spoke his mind, and for that he was convicted. What a sad day for America.

Grade: ***** out of *****


Lenny is the story of the controversial comedian Lenny Bruce whose wild antics and crude humor lead to rise and ultimately his fall. This film though takes the risk of being shaped in a documentary-esquire design. Watching the opening minutes of the film worried me that this film would retreat into itself rather then expand in the so many aspects in which it actually did.

Lenny is portrayed with extraordinary and edgy depth by Dustin Hoffman. For me, this is the film that convinced me that Dustin Hoffman is truly a first rate actor. The range shown here by him from beginning to end is astounding in not his portrayal of the change in his personality, but in the drastic but slow transformation in his mental and psychological state. The range of the cast in general is quite commendable in the break stints in the film in which they are shown to be interviewed individually on the life of Lenny Bruce.

With this unique style of film making, much credit should be given to Bob Fosse who brings an original visual experience. Also the screenplay by Julian Barry is totally engaging. In my opinion this movie is indicative of the revolutionary style brought to movies during the 1970s. Lenny might be one of the most courageous movies ever made and it reaches its full potential.