Claude Chabrol, the French director of many thrillers and dramas and other genres, is at his best when subtly but forcefully pulling the rug out from the viewer. This isn't your usual case of a romance story criss-crossed with a serial killer thriller. In fact, we're not made very much aware that there is a serial killer- save for a few mentions here and there- until halfway through the movie, and by the time we are it's full-throttle in a kind of expertly manipulated suspense, not in the usual sense but through an ominous musical score by Pierre Jansen and a movement of fluidity with the camera that tells the story sort of conventionally but not at the same time. It's a small, master's class in subverting the genre by making us care so much about the characters even as we know they're doomed from the happy opening.

That's not to say that Chabrol has made anything that can't be enjoyed by one looking for a good entertaining thriller first and foremost. If anything the opening of the movie is what lures one in perfectly, as it's a very jovial in this wedding sequence one sees guests school-teacher Helene (Stephane Audran, Chabrol regular) and butcher Paul (Jean Yanne, perfect as the butcher), enjoying themselves and making good conversation. This stretches out into the first half of the film; a friendship develops around food that Paul brings over, and it's only when Paul thinks its time to go the 'next step' that he's told it can't be because of a past horrible relationship that Helen faced- horrible in the sense of disappointment. There's a disconnect emotionally that is left open, thus, going into the second half of the film, where finally we see what some of us would be waiting for: the serial killer plot.

There's a string of murders involving women, and one of them- the bride from the opening- is a shocker not exactly for the revelation itself, per-say, but how Chabrol builds up to it. At first it's seen as the most suspenseful thing in the film so far as Helen leads her class along a mountainside and stops to have lunch. The music is playing right here, and it's really chilling for how simple it lays out the tension, like a weirdo standing across the street in a black cloak acting suspicious but, at the same time, too subtle to pin down. This adds to the sudden shock, then, after the music stops and finally the reveal happens via blood dripping on the kid's sandwich. This, however, is just one example of Chabrol's calm mastery as a director of the material.

It would be one thing to go on and on about the eerie absorption of the camera-work, which goes between conventional stylization (for a French film of the period) and poetic editing and framing. Or to go on and on about the stunning work turned by Audran (going between an entire emotional palette, as it were, from happy to sobbing to frightened to pale and shot to hell) and Yanne (also great at what he's meant to be, our male protagonist and, sadly, eventual antagonist by default). But it's the emotional struggle that makes this compelling above all other good reasons to recommend.

The Butcher posits a relationship that is platonic, naturalistic, and genuinely interesting; these aren't cookie-cutter characters but well-drawn and with things that make them identifiable even as they, early on, seem to go on about trivial things not related to the plot (a little like a Woody Allen movie). Then, when it switches gears bit by bit and the paranoia increases, by the time the climax comes it becomes very, ultimately, tragic. Chabrol goes to lengths to reveal, simply, the soul of a man one should not feel any sympathy for. That one close-up in the car ride to the hospital is one of the finest climaxes I might ever see in a movie from Europe, even anywhere. And damned if isn't representative of what Chabrol can do as a craftier but no less true-to-his-art member of the Cashier du cinema filmmaker club. A+


A young accomplished headmistress of a Parisian village, Miss Helen(Stéphane Audran), is in a conundrum..she's in love with a serial killer, Paul(Jean Yanne), the local butcher, who has been stabbing young females in the surrounding area with a knife, leaving bloody corpses. Stumped Police Inspector Grumbach(Roger Rudel)questions Helen after a second murder of a local girl married to a teacher she knows, Leon(Mario Beccara),bleeds upon the head of a student after a field trip into a cavern looking at prehistoric paintings. Helen confiscates a key piece of evidence linking Paul to the crime..a cigarette lighter she gave him for his birthday. What started as a blossoming romance between two people soon darkens as Helen must fear that Paul's homicidal tendencies could endanger her own well being.

My first Claude Chabrol thriller was a nice surprise. It's really more of a character study, a kind of "opposites attract" romance develops regarding how two completely different people find a mutual growing friendship and love for one another despite their glaring differences. Audran is a revelation, completely believable, as this elegant, refined, sophisticated lady who is absolutely realistic as the headmistress. Yanne looks like your typical working-class butcher, walking with a slouch, often discussing the horrors of war, but very mannered, guarded as to not say too much, yet appealing in a quiet way. I like how they find this pleasant rapport with each other.

I think the decision to shoot in such a minimalist manner, from the performances to the style, enhances the film..like a good Hitchcock thriller, Chabrol is even able to create a type of McGuffen regarding the first murder as we follow Helen and Paul's bonding, the way they meet each other(..stopping by each other's place of employment as they work), spending time together, disregarding the village uproar about the vicious slaying, acknowledging it in a subdued way. I think that's perhaps the most interesting aspect of the thriller..the way neither Helen or Paul dwell on the murder until they have no other choice. For a while the only way you could tell it was a potential thriller was the very moody, rather chilling score. I think another aspect which worked for me was the idea that a killer was close by and that Helen was the main focus of the film..Chabrol never leaves her, and the threat towards her life was quite vivid. I appreciate Chabrol's unpretentious direction..he doesn't call attention to himself, allowing the characters and story to grip you instead.


Hitchcock comparisons abound with Chabrol. However, you may be hard pressed to see anything other than a superficial similarity between them here.

Although nicely acted and crafted, 'Le Boucher' has a curious sense of disengagement that will either fascinate or frustrate viewers. While not necessarily a bad thing in itself, this can also give the impression of a lack of depth. It's hard to fully discern what the character motivations are so, depending on your proclivity, you are likely to become either enthralled or disinterested in what they might actually be.

Viewers familiar with Francois Truffaut will notice some similarities in approach but Chabrol lacks the concise poetry of that other French great. Even though the opening wedding sequence nicely sets up a scene of normality for the events that follow, it's rather overlong and a more Hitchcockian terseness would certainly have helped.

Still, the film does have a strange charm and there are some excellent character ideas regarding the schoolteacher (content with her celibacy long after a bad relationship) being seduced? threatened? by the promise of new love from the local butcher - who may or may not be a murderer. These threads are either unexplored or deliberately withheld, depending on your point of view.

A worthwhile watch for those interested but, possibly, not quite the masterpiece some might lead you to believe it is.


Chabrol's "The Butcher" is perhaps more horror movie than suspenser. This may account for the strange behavior of Helene, so perfectly realized by Stephane Audran. The big question that arises at the movie's end is: "How can Helene be so lovingly forgiving of a vicious serial killer." Especially right after calling on every ounce of her physical and emotional being to save herself from his terror. And especially not long after the vicious sexual murder of a dear employee---for whom she shows less emotion, but more than what she showed for the original very local victim, which was none at all. For a wonderfully intelligent and upbeat teacher, her behavior is certainly questionable, and bothersome. Are we supposed to blame these crimes on the butcher's military past? And therefore understand Helene's sympathetic patience and love for Popaul? Yes, I think this is the idea. But it doesn't wash with this viewer. For Popaul's crimes way outdistance anything the viewer senses from his war experience. Perhaps the better explanation is that this is a straight out horror movie where intentions and motivations hardly enter in---and that Helene, far from being a true masochist, is no more than a character following her role. I would have preferred a suspense film where she would have been allowed her own convincing independence and intelligence.


Chabrol draws heavily on Hitchcockian themes here, and the end result is a short, succinct interesting French tale that, although not meeting the influencer's fantastic work, this film is a good solid starting point for those wishing to be introduced to Chabrol's work; the similarities to mid 20th century English language suspense movies allow the viewer to become easily immersed in the world created. The plot revolves around Helene, a small-town teacher, played well by Stephane Audren, who is loved by her students, although she does not believe in the concept of true love herself. She, perhaps predictably, finds herself falling in love with a new man in town, the butcher Popal played excellently by Jean Yanne. When a series of murders are committed, Helene begins to suspect Popal, worrying that she is next. Of course, in such films the plot is not that important, and Chabrol establishes this with a variety of set-pieces that combine well if not fantastically.


I have to say I find it difficult to join in the chorus of 'masterpiece' preceding this comment but that is not to dismiss it out of hand. I merely wonder it is possible to have a thriller without thrills. It's clear from murder #1 who the killer is and there's not even an attempt at a red herring but by the same token we are spared the justification scene I did it because my parents rejected me, never displayed affection, etc. Apparently this guy IS really just a son of a bitch. This leaves us with atmosphere, lighting, music, acting. The lighting is non existent and what music there is is unobtrusive but luckily acting and atmos test high so all in all it's well worth an 8.


The young Chabrol introduces the viewer into the daily life of the female school teacher that becomes us : so we gently search for affection and empathy, we discover the gentleness of a mute character and beyond the horror is waiting. Or is it the gentleness that lies beyond horror?


This is a good movie and I would recommend it to anyone, just not whole-heartedly. You see, it was far from great as there were a few plot problems that got in the way of my complete enjoyment. First, it was very hard to believe that when the school teacher found evidence of who the serial killer was, she would keep this to herself--even if she did like the person a lot. Secondly, the film only had one or two plot twists and there really were no other potential people portrayed in the movie who could have been the murderer, so the identity of the actual criminal wasn't in much doubt--even when a little plot twist was added to make you possibly doubt it was really him. No, to be an exceptional suspense film, there must be more dead-ends and twists--this movie just didn't offer surprises. What I DID like about the film was the romance. I would have MUCH preferred to see this played out instead of the whole serial killer angle.


A distanced, uninvolving movie, apparently regarded by many people as a masterpiece. Well, I have to disagree strongly; as a drama, it never really pulls the viewer into the story (which progresses very ploddingly), and as a thriller it almost never generates any tension. A tedious movie, only for patient people. (*1/2)


Well, it has been a very long time since I have seen this film. In fact it is so long ago that my memory of it is probably more filled with nostalgia rather than reality. But that is probably a good place to begin. If I were 4 or 5 years old as I was when I saw the picture I would seriously impress upon you the qualities of this film. Thinking about it now I am not to sure why.

What I remember is strange events - People flying around on giant match sticks, odd coloured sweets, a strange alien sort of chap and a snowy Canadian landscape. And also the fact that I really enjoyed it at the time (Christmas). Often when you manage to catch a hold of things from your childhood they are not as well made as you remember them, but, if it really sticks in your mind they must have got something right other than just glossy special effects we now come to expect. I would definitely recommend this film as I guess the makers good intentions and hardy endeavours were matched by the resulting unique Christmas fantasy.


I hope i never see this movie again.

Not in a bad way though, it's just the memories of this film give me a warm, fuzzy, nostalgic feeling & i wouldn't want to spoil this by watching as an adult.

I've given this movie 10/10 just because of the nostalgia factor, if i watched it again as an adult, i get the feeling it'd struggle to get past 3.

I've kinda spoiled some TV memories by re-watching old shows & we all know that however much we want to, we cant feel the same way about the things we loved as kids.

Anyway, I'm off to watch reruns of Diff'rent Strokes.

:-)

XX mojo XX


I've seen this movie again recently and it is very dated. But I can remember loving it when I saw it some 25 years ago. It is low budget and simplistic, but it had kid appeal when we didn't have 200 tv stations to choose from and video stores at every corners.


It may be confusing, and it may be a bit strange, but I recorded The Christmas Martian off TV years ago - it was an instant classic! I just love the funny effects used (such as a handheld floating device which resembles a match stick!).

I can't completely explain why I like this film so much, but it's just so funny!

Anyone who likes stupid films (films which were intended to be for children, but no-one can understand) should definitely see this!


An odd little film which anticipates "E.T." with its story of a friendly alien who is hunted by the local law enforcers but befriended by two children who help him repair his flying saucer. This slight story is bolstered by plenty of shots of people driving around on snowmobiles and shots of the snowy landscape which means the film often resembles a tourist travelogue. Still it is one of the only SF films made in the French Canadian region which gives it a slight curiosity value.

The alien resembles a circus clown whose make up was devised by Andy Warhol. He indulges in some lame slapstick and low key alien behaviour which confuses the local adults and delights their children. This film has a warm fuzzy feel to it which stops me being particularly vitriolic about it, but I can't seriously recommend it to anyone either due to the rather slow pace and predictability of the whole affair.


"Madame Sata" is a movie that depicts a bygone era. This colorful film directed by Karim Ainouz concentrates on the life of a charismatic man who lived an interesting life. We are taken to the Rio of the 1930s to witness the night life that flourished in the bohemian Lapa neighborhood, with its many dives and night clubs where all kinds of people mixed together.

This is the story of Joao, a poor black man who is a homosexual living in a macho dominated society. The film opens as Joao is being processed because of a crime he committed. We watch his face in a close-up where an off camera voice is reading what he did, and then we are taken back to watch his life in flashbacks.

Joao, who is an assistant to a French third rate chanteuse, is seen backstage imitating the singer in his own way, which is much better than what that tired woman does on stage. Joao lives in a household that includes Laurita, a friendly prostitute, and Tabu, a gay man who loves dressing as a woman, even for house work.

This was the era where the movies glorify those larger than life women who inspired gays all over the world to imitate them. Joao feels the attraction and after losing Renatinho, he asks the friendly Amador, who owns a bar in the Lapa district to give him a chance to perform in the style of the great divas of the era. The result is an instant success because of the innate talent in Joao. Alas, tragedy strikes when a loud mouth drunk begins to insult Joao, who decides to take matters into his own hand with dire consequences. In real life, Joao was in and out of prisons all his life.

Lazaro Ramos does a fantastic job portraying this complex man who was ahead of his time. Mr. Ramos is the best excuse for watching this Brazilian film that shows that seedy side of a society condemned to live in poverty and need. Marcelia Cartaxo plays Laurita, a true friend, who stuck by Joao no matter how bad things got. Flavioi Bauraqui is another asset in the film appearing as Tabu, the other member of Joao's household. Fellipe Marques is perfect as Renatinho, the man who loved Joao.

"Madame Sata" offers a nostalgic look at the life in Rio during the 30s and it's based on the true story of the man who was made famous for his originality and contribution to a society that tried to keep him away from mixing with them. This is a great directing job by Karim Ainouz, who with the writer, Marcelo Gomes, takes the viewer to a magical ride to the exotic life of that long gone Brazil.


When I was a boy, Madame Satã was a legend in Rio de Janeiro. João Francisco dos Santos was born in the turn of the century, and was famous for being a very controversial person: homosexual, black, poor, artist, a very violent and excellent fighter and a symbol of Lapa, where he lived. This movie is the dramatization of the ten years before the creation by João Francisco dos Santos of the character Madame Satã, inspired in the 1930 Cecil B. DeMille's Madam Satan (unfortunately, this movie has not been released in Brazil and I have never had the chance to see it). 'Madame Satã' is another great example of the marvelous moment of the Brazilian Cinema. The direction is very precise, using old parts in the city of Rio de Janeiro specially in Lapa and Santa Teresa and a high level photography to recreate life in the 30's in Old Rio. The cast is fantastic, highlighting the performance of the stunning Lázaro Ramos, who is also the leader actor of the excellent and very recommended 'O Homem Que Copiava'. The story, as I previously mentioned, is limited to a short period before the raise of Madame Satã to the scenario of Rio de Janeiro and is very realistic, inclusive showing the homosexual activity of João Francisco. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Madame Satã'


I found this movie mesmerizing, both due to the lead performance and the depiction of a time and place previously unfamiliar to me. A previous user comment said that Jaoa is heterosexual and that Lorita's baby is his. Just for clarification, he is not, and neither is the baby. I don't know how accurate this bio-pic really is in portraying the life of Jaoa Francisco vos Santos. But the character is a perplexing and complex mixture of violence and tenderness, talent and self-destruction. Clearly a victim of internalized homophobia and brutal class hierarchy, Jaoa knows he is destined for greatness, but can't keep his underlying rage from exploding all over everyone, friend and foe. It's dog eat dog in the slums of Rio, but Jaoa creates a family with a female prostitute named Lorita, her baby(on whom Jaoa dotes sweetly), and the greatly put-upon and abused servant, Tabu. Jaoa takes one step forward, then two steps back--straight in to prison, over and over. The real Jaoa Francisco vos Santos was a highly celebrated female impersonator and lived to the ripe old age of 76, despite an extremely punishing existence. I think the film reveals naked humanity, sometimes the viewer is horrified but can't stop peering into the wreckage.


This is like watching a Jean Genet novel translated into Portuguese and relocated to Brazil, circa 1930. All the characters are present: thieves and whores, drag queens and murders, love and hate. Lázaro Ramos, as Madame Satã, gives a wonderful performance that gives real meaning to the word `fierce';a complicated man whose only possible response to a world that hates him is to rage against it. And what rage! And what love! The family he pieces together, as wounded and damaged as he is, provides the only constant in a life that poverty and exile have doomed to chaos. Karim Ainouz, the director, must be congratulated on this courageous film.


I feel proud about the Brazilian cinema of the last years. Although facing many difficulties, mainly financial ones, the Brazilian film-makers are proving that it is possible to make a truly high level cinema here.

 "Madame Satã" is just another example of this new Brazilian cinematography. Excellent photography, which really brings to the screen the mood of 30's bars and nightclubs from Lapa (Rio de Janeiro traditional bohemian neighbourhood, known also for its violence). The camera is "drunk" and "high" in many moments, in others is able to show tenderness in an ultra violent and uncontrolable character (the scenes where João Francisco takes care of Laurita's baby). The cast is excellent, with a great merit of young Lázaro Ramos, performing a character that has everything to lead to exageration or to a ridiculous acting; even though, Lázaro manages to bring to life in a realistic way someone who is a homosexual with feminine behaviour in some times and in other times is a scary fighter, who could deal with 3 or 4 opponents bare handed.

 The main achievement of the film, though, in my opinion, is that the director wanted to show the personality of João Francisco, not worrying too much in telling a story. The plot is almost absent, we are invited to make part of João Francisco's turbulent, violent and difficult life through Lapa's gethos and bars, dealing with prostitutes, police, thugs and dangerous people. We can understand why Francisco,later called "Madame Satã" lived that way (even though we may not agree with it) , having in one hand the fascination for a fairy tale world of fantasy, with songs in French and taking care of a baby and in the other hand dealt with streetfights, robbery and eventual imprisonments in jail. If it is difficult for someone to be poor, black and homosexual in nowaday's Brazil, imagine in the 30's!

 Great movie, great acting, great photography, great editing, the only thing I can do is give it a 10!


As a Dutchman it is hard to judge the historical content of the film. What I've seen was very interesting. Considering the fact it is made after a true story it makes it even more special. The film covers many aspects of life in Brazil in the thirties. Although it is often shown in broad lines it's convinces me. It made me think of the class struggle in my own country. In Dutch you say: als je voor een dubbeltje geboren bent wordt je nooit een kwartje (when you are born as a nickel you'll never become a quarter. In a way it is an optimistic movie. Despite of all the setbacks and jail sentences, the main character does not get broken. Madame Satá becomes a real success winning several prices in carnival parades and other events. I truly admire the actors, especially Lázaro Ramos who plays stunning. The camera-work is great. The special effects are modest and well done. The music in the film is beautiful. I really enjoyed this movie. This movie deserves a wide audience.


Madame Sata is one of the most colorful, agitating, controversial, shifting, restless, erratic films you could ever watch on silver screen. The protagonist is also the antagonist with his often irrational and aggressive behaviour, possibly a trademark of Joao Francisco himself on which the film is based on, although this could be one of the film's flaws. The characters are as lively and colorful as he is and the acting is quite well, too.

An activist and a pioneer in many ways in the Brasil of 1930's, he could be seen as a gay activist, a transvestite activist, a swinger activist, a one-man-show pioneer, a strong, willful, self-confident and proud individual who defies almost all possible rules, regulations and conventions of his time, and not because he wants to be standing out.

Although the story line and Francisco's character are quite fanciful and interesting, the dialogues seem to be pretentious, the character build-up insufficient and the editing quite confusing, causing the overall feel to be incomplete and puzzling.


Spoilers contained, but only in a general sense, not specific! I watched this movie expecting something about drag queens or someone who could be considered significant in some way, hence the "based on a true story" blurb in the description, yet I can't find any reason why anyone would have made a movie about the primary character. I found him to be unlikable, unsympathetic and not even a good drag queen! This man, if the story is indeed based on fact, was totally lacking in any redeeming characteristics; cruel to his "friends," unattractive physically, a thief, liar, con man, a criminal, violent, talentless and ignorant. Apparently he was notable for winning a costume contest after spending ten years in prison and that warrants a movie about him? The other characters were just sad; Lurita and Taboo. I could not get a clear sense of whether he was lovers with Lurita or Taboo or they coexisted as a "family" unit of unwanted people who found comfort in each other, yet even then the primary character was so cruel to Taboo that it sickened me. OK, I get that this time period, this neighborhood, these people were poor, ignorant and had miserable lives, but what in this movie, this story, was worthy of making a movie about? I sat through this whole movie waiting for something noteworthy to happen, to make me care about these people, to explain why their lives were being portrayed and that moment never came. It was a waste of time and money for me. No point to it at all.


What a total surprise. One sunny Afternoon, my associate and I wander into a dark little cinema in Cannes to see a little pubicised film.

From the moment the the turquoise beads on the bead curtain parted, and the rich tones of a Brazilian voice, spoke, we were mesmerised.

An incredible mix of doom, dispair and triumph in abject failure and disaster.

MUST BE SEEN!!!


This is a fascinating, extremely well done, documentary style Indie film about the life of a down and out guy who defies narrow definitions.

The story description focuses on the most outré elements of this man's life: Brazillian pimp, street fighter, drag queen, thief, criminal.

The outstanding achievement of this film, though, is to put his life into context, that he is also protector, father, dreamer, artist; and to neither airbrush, glamorize nor excuse his life.

This film goes further to put his life into context in the racial mix of Brazil of the 1930s, when slaves were freed but not allowed to hold jobs, the Brazil of Carnival where even the most macho men appear in drag. Deftly touching on all, but not belaboring any one of these elements of bigotry and systemic injustices, we are given a real portrait of an unusual family who are revealed in their entirety, not entirely good, not entirely bad, really human.

The performances of the main four characters are simply outstanding and raw, so much so that you begin to wonder if this really IS a documentary. The small supporting roles are all equally strong. A riveting film in all respects; here the art direction and filming styles really augment the gritty reality and emotional perspective of an edgy life in a difficult time and place.

This is a morally complex film, not for children at all, not for those who do not like indie films. If you see it on DVD, DEFINITELY listen to the commentary, the Director DOES achieve what he hopes to convey. This is not a film you "love" - it is one that deserves deep respect.


If you don't feel uncomfortable to watch homosexual sex scenes, it's worth to watch it. Shows Rio de Janeiro when in a hypocrite society, who just ignored social problems like poverty, color distinction and others, that still existing. Tells a story in a simple way, without using any Hollywood's cliché - and shows how and why the violence grows on shantytowns or guetos in the main brazilian cities.


I felt a gap between the movie itself, and the closing credits in which later history about the Madam Sata character is narrated along with film clips of Rio Carnival. That gap is a jagged edge for me, and yet I cannot propose a smoother ending or smoother inclusion of the personality of Madam Sata into the main.

Other than that comment, I was caught into the excellent casting, direction and editing. The documentary seemed to be somewhat detached in time although we knew the inclusive dates as it covered multiple issues of race, prejudice, anger, bigotry, self-identity -- and all things that are experienced or tested by humans in sexual drive and satisfaction.

It is in the latter that we definitely feel the struggle, violence, growth and pride of Joao Francisco dos Santos as a strongly driven heterosexual man that ultimately yields to his comfort in cross-dressing while maintaining a jagged, devoted relationship with Laurita and her/his child.

Wonderful mosaic


Confused and shallow biography of Madame Satã, a notorious Brazilian homossexual thief fails in the attempt of give a large, acurate and more profound vision of a so curious and rich man. The movie just go on and on telling about his homosexual relationship, his exibitions as a gay singer in some old and decadent places but forget to portrait the human side of the main character, mainly his relations with the press, the intelectual of his time. The direction is electric but at the end the result is just routine. Ramos gives a superb performance as Satã but he doesn't save this lame misfire. I give this a 4 (four).


a perfectly mediocre, expendable picture about an old Lapa character. Lapa, FYI used to be the bohemian district par excellenceof Rio de Janeiro from the 20s through the 50s. This film takes place in 1932. The protagonist is a malandro (scally-wag) who was born in 1900 and died in 1976. He was sentenced twice. the second time for a first-degree murder. Although the cast is fine and energetic, there was no reason to invest in this kind of soft-core homo porn, with lots of tongues, sweat & pricks. I, for one, definitely do not see homosexualisty as an avant-garde attitude in principle. Satan was a poor misfit, but also a violent hooligan and a cowardly assassin, as this film, based on his own autobiography, actually shows . Indeed the film's success proves how low are current standards of undemanding movie audiences ... This is amateur filmmaking, badly scripted, poorly filmed (lots of socked closes & absence of tripods). The ocasional soundtracks compensates a little for that. We hear a vintage, lovely duo by Francisco Alves/Mario Reis singing Nilton Bastos' Se voce jurar, we have great Kitsch tenor Vicente Celestino singing Candido das Neves' immortal Noite Cheia de Estrelas. Satan himself, or rather herself does a curious impersonation of Josephine Baker, who by the way is also be seen in the excerpts from the original Madam Satan, directed by Cecil B de Mille in his most extreme, odd mood (the action of 'Madam Satan,' the original 1930 musical, takes place inside a Zeppelin!). May I add that I was at one time introduced to Madam Satan in person. This happened during a Baile dos Enxutos, which was not yet called a 'Gay Ball' then, at the teatro Republica, 1961. He was a discreet, short, middle-aged, short-haired mulatto in his early sixties. I never forgot his quick, perceptive repartee. He wittily remarked about two frolicking guys in my own mardi-gras group (the actor Heleno Prestes and his lover, theatre director Martim Gonçalves): "Bonecas tambem hein?" (sissies too eh?)


Madame Satã (2002) is more or less a biography of a Brazilian criminal, pimp, and abuser of both men and women. I think we are to understand that his actions are driven by his ambition to be a transvestite star in the Rio de Janeiro slums.

I don't know if the performances we see are meant to be evidence of talent--I can't judge what a Brazilian audience would enjoy in 1932. I do know that the protagonist's behavior was consistently cruel and explosively violent.

Nothing I saw in this film impressed me. It was shown at the Rochester Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. Is this the best film the committee could find about cross-dressing?


It's a different kind of movie about coming of age. Dermot Mulroney is great as are most of the cast. Dermot Mulroney is a working-class, high school boy whose time to grow up has come.

Not a formula film in any way that I can tell. A great cast. Lili Taylor, Sam Shepard, Delroy Lindo, Mary Kay Place, Benjamin Bratt (not his best performance perhaps), Will Patton, Burt Young.

The ending was great, in my opinion. In fact, what said it all for me was at the end of the film, the change in the expression of Dermot Mulroney's face as he sat in the back of the pickup. I thought the acting was good. A strange movie, I grant you, but I feel it was well worth the watch.


I saw this film with two senior citizens; I'd picked it out from the video store -- which I did frequently for these friends. The husband was in his 80s, his wife her late 60s; both love the theater and have been active in local amateur productions. We all thought this film was exceptional -- in just about every way. Delroy Lindo has a typically rather small part (unfortunately) but manages to be breathtakingly captivating for every moment he's onscreen (also typical for him). But the maturity of the young man, the son who has just seen his parents break up in a rather nasty fashion -- that's what's so outstanding. His presence, his sense-of-self, his ability to steer his way through difficult situations into a growing awareness of what matters and what doesn't. Rarely are teenagers or young twenty-somethings given roles where this is shown. Finding one's way to maturity doesn't usually get such an honest treatment; maybe it's unappealing to teenagers to see it told without the usual Hollywood froo-frah of frat house parties, beer guzzling, and bimbos. Too bad. Yes, this does have a bit of that "play made into a movie" feel to it; but what a play, and what a movie, nonetheless. Hats off to Sam Shepard, and all the other actors and crew for this piece. Shepard himself is not onscreen much, but excellent in the opening as the hot-tempered father. We end up, as the film goes on, seeing Shepard through the character of the son, so much so, he seems to be in almost every scene. Just look in the young man's eyes, how he carries himself, how he appraises himself and others clearly and honestly, but without the usual teenage brashness of expression. He's more the strong, silent type. Maybe you have to be over 30 (I'm 47) to like/love this film. It's kind of a modern-day "noir" film -- except it's not a crime movie; more of an existentialist, Sartre "No Exit" type of work. But it's not exactly that bleak, either: the strength, the resolve of the son, as well as the damaged, semi-paranoid character played by Lindo -- both these men cannot be forgotten, and neither can ultimately be seen as tragic figures. The film's story texture allows for much richer evaluations; it may be raw, it may be rough, but you come away uplifted by what you've witnessed.


Beautiful portrait of a young man whose innocence is so pure that he is not affected by the harsh reality around him. Mulroney radiates his sweet personality all through the movie. A collector's gem for all fans of him or the rest of the impressive cast.


I saw this movie a couple of years ago. Recently I picked up a copy not remembering I had already seen it. I was about 15 to 20 minutes into the film when it began looking familiar and I realized I had, ergo, why I say its not one you would remember. The plot was some what off beat and you wonder just how much trouble Dermot Mulroney's character can innocently get into; he seems to attract it like honey does flies. Growing up is part of life and it is seen some what here as a young man transitions into manhood, all be it, Mulroney was 28 when he played the part. Several actors did not appear to be of an age near the individual characters they portrayed; specifically, the mother and aunt of Mulroney's character. I found this somewhat distracting. While okay to watch once, I was not that thrilled the second time around.


Congrats, this was the worst movie I was ever unfortunate enough to see (and I've seen a lot). Acting sucked, script sucked, and if there had BEEN a plot that would have sucked too. I don't blame the actors, they didn't have much to work with. This just stumbled into every single trap it could have stumbled into. The kicker? The *ending*...what the hell was that?


This was one of the most worthless movies I have ever seen. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the script was pathetic. The only thing remotely interesting was beautiful Lili Taylor. Too bad she was in such a dog of a movie.


Cold Comfort Farm has been and remains one of my favorite movies of all time. Why? Simple: it is hilarious, has a star-studded and perfect ensemble cast, and is a beautiful adaptation of an equally, if not more hilarious, book. When one thinks about this movie, one always returns to the cast and how well-suited they were for their roles. Kate Beckinsale fits perfectly in the role of London débutante Flora Poste who, like Jane Austen, "could not endure a mess." Ian McKellen plays his role to fire and brimstone perfection. Rufus Sewell is remarkably well suited as the smoldering Seth with his brooding eyes and husky, outdoors-y sentiments. Eileen Atkins plays the extremely depressed, reverse-Oedipal mother of Seth in all her exceptional oddness. This is but naming a few of the fabulous cast members that fills this film. The film itself is beautifully filmed and beautifully acted. I would highly recommend it to anyone who 1)enjoys subtle British humor and 2)just enjoys an all-around excellent film.


 Praise is the only thing I can give this comedic gem of a film! Gibbon's characters come vividly to life in this perfect adaptation of her retro-Austin book. Kate Beckinsale give the best performance of her gifted career as "Robert Poste's Child",Flora who take up an invitation to Cold Comfort Farm with the motive of changing her extended family,the Starkadders, who reside there ("there have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm"),and find out what the "great wrong" was that they had done her father,a wrong that they are most repentant of. By film's end she has accomplished one of these goals.

 The cast is sheer perfection.Beckinsale is vivacious,perky,gutsy and completly charming,Sheila Burrell is a riot as family matriarch Ada Doom who keeps a tight leash on her family and hardly leaves her room since she "saw somthing nasty in the woodshed". Sir Ian McKellen is dynamic and utterly hysterical as Cousin Amo Starkadder who preaches fire and brimstone sermons warning all that in hell there is no butter to sooth the burns. Eileen Atkins as Amos wife,cousin Judith and Freddy Jones as their hired hand are also standouts,but with such a perfect cast there are no weak links,so take sit back and take a journey to the far regions of Sussex with Flora Poste and investigate the quirky Starkadder family, with secrets aplenty at Cold Comfort Farm..once there you will want to make many more visits


The first time I saw CCF I walked out of the theater wondering whether or not I liked it. The more I thought about it and a couple rentals later and I love this movie. It's funny on so many different levels you've really got to dedicate a few viewings before passing final judgment.

This is one of the few movies I'd put in the same category as "Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" - movies that get funnier the more times you watch them.


Humorous film involving a spirited young woman by the name of Flora, who brings her stylish views of living, to the oppressed residents of a country farm. The humor at times is very dark and cutting, and oft times hilarious. They'll be plenty of good, quotable material from this well-crafted film, to go around. My favorite: "...Drain the well, there's a neighbor missing..." The script is very slick, and the performances are even better. If you enjoy offbeat humor mixed with a really sweet story, you'll like this movie.


This film has to be one of the most enjoyable films I have ever seen. The sincerity and wittiness of Jane Austen combined with the ridicule of a Shakespearean play, Cold Comfort Farm tells a clever, little story about a young, determined London-girl who is set on lifting the curse of the Starkadder family. Kate Beckinsale's Flora Poste is as unshaken and well-spoken as Austen's Emma (who Beckinsale has also starred as) but in a more cheerful and less hypocritical manner.

The names in the film do their best to describe the utter depravity of the Starkadder's: The horse Viper, the cows Aimless, Senseless, Heedless and Desireless and aunt Ada Doom. The acting in the film is flawless and Stephen Fry is just the icing on the cake.


ABsolutely terrific movie is an interesting take on the popular theme of people who come into a mess of unhappiness and create joy. Often these movies rely on a central character who is magical, or has great charm and a love for life, but Flora achieves her ends through pure English practicality, and it is very amusing to see someone approaching misery as a mess to be cleaned up. Flora, excellently portrayed by Beckinsdale, is pretentious and rather smug but also well-meaning and likable. In a way she seems to be the personification of British imperialism, although that's probably a bit of a stretch.

Much of the fun of the movie is the ridiculous level of misery and squalor represented by Cold Comfort Farm, which is a parody of the sort of grim worlds one can find from writers like Dickens. Eileen Atkins does a great job, but then they all do. The only real weak point in the movie is Mybug, a character that seems completely unnecessary. Perhaps he was a significant character who served some purpose in the novel, but here he is just this annoying peripheral character, and had he been cut entirely out of the movie it would have been all the better for it (although I generally like Stephen Fry). But in spite of that, an excellent film.


Period, end of statement.

There are a few films that are so incredibly well done, so seamless, that they could be watched daily. Well, that *I* could watch daily.

This is one!

It never lags, it never sags.

It is funny, it is real.

It is touching, it is hopeful.

Kate Beckinsale started her career on such a high note with this early work!

The rest of the actors are simply perfect in their roles. Sim-ply perfect!


"Cold Comfort Farm" is one of those movies that, as others have said, grows on you each time you watch it, and after it has done so, you want to pass it around to all your friends. It's great fun to see how Flora Poste's (Kate Beckinsale) arrival at Cold Comfort Farm brightens this dreary, incredibly odd family's life and how she sets about making everybody's life there better. Ian McKellan is excellent (as usual) in his role as the head of the Starkadder household, and the fiery preacher at the local church. If you let it, this movie will be one that you take out and watch over again with great enjoyment, and whose quotable lines become part of your family's lingo for all time.


"Child, child. If you come to this doomed 'ouse, what is there to save you?"- Judith Starkadder in COLD COMFORT FARM.

The "child" in question is the lone offspring of one Robert Poste (deceased) and, as we are soon to discover, Poste's progeny, Flora, is hardly one in need of saving. Orphaned in her budding womanhood, nettled by the golden orb of an unrealized literary career, Flora strikes out from the discerning (or snobbish) urban sophistication of London ( leaving behind her good friend Mary and Mary's invaluable manservant, Sneller) and heads for the bucolic splendor of the Sussex countryside to lodge with her relatives, the Starkadders, and find herself.

She finds instead: a muck-begrimed tumbledown estate wherein resides a ready-for- Hollywood womanizer (Cousin Seth), an estate-coveting farmer (Cousin Reuben), a daffy romantic (Cousin Elfine), a too-loving mother (Cousin Judith), a 'vengeful god', proselytizing father (Cousin Amos), and an iron-willed matriarch (Greataunt Ada Doom). There's also a smattering of Lambsbreath (Adam) and a smidgen of Hawk-Monitor (Dick).

Inside the Starkadder fold Flora encounters a resistance to dish washing modernity (the twig versus the hand mop); the rumor of an unmentionable misdeed once perpetrated against her father; the oft-cited permanence of the Starkadders on their environs; and the matriarch's frequently mentioned trauma after having witnessed a particularly odious occurrence inside the outdoor log pile storage facility ("...something nasty in the woodshed"). Undaunted, Flora presents a cool brow and an almost impervious demeanor plus an extremely persuasive power to influence. Within COLD COMFORT FARM, where high fashion and applied scientific reasoning smash headlong into arrested sociological development and stunted personal/ familial growth, tear-inducing laughter is the order of the day.

As mentioned in the comments of others, Ms. Beckinsale, clad in her natty period togs and radiating a winsome, unflappable aura (while also projecting a strangely prepubescent vibe), hasn't had as good a role since Flora. Meanwhile, those master thespians, Freddie Jones, Ian McKellan, and the inimitable Eileen Atkins nearly go mad with delight as they burrow gleefully into their characters. Rufus Sewell's Seth smolders hilariously while Stephen Fry's Mybug, "soaked in nature's fecund blessing", blusters uproariously. This sort of comedy of manners and cultural collision required an intelligent, perceptive and witty director. John Schlesinger (DARLING, 1965) fit the bill gloriously.


"Cold Comfort Farm" has a familiar plot, but is very well done. Portraying young Flora Poste (Kate Beckinsale) moving in with her backwards relatives in 1930s England and trying to change everything, the movie has the perfect pacing. It's the sort of situation where her relatives sort of irk you, but you can't help but admire them (mainly due to Flora's snobbish attitude about everything). It just goes to show what a great director John Schlesinger ("Midnight Cowboy", "The Day of the Locust", "Pacific Heights") was. He will definitely be missed. Also starring Eileen Atkins, Stephen Fry, Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen, Miriam Margoyles and Rufus Sewell.


First part of a twin bill I watched featuring Ian McKellen (X-Men, Lord of the Rings). He played a fire and brimstone country preacher that reminded me of the 17th Century Puritan Minister Cotton Mather.

The movie starred Eileen Atkins (Cold Mountain) and Kate Beckinsale (Underworld). Beckansale played a girl in 1930s England who went to the rural farm property after the death of her father. In a period comedy she proceeds to change the lives of her extended family in a way that gives each of them what they want and free them from their bondage to the seemingly crazy matriarch (Sheila Burrell).

It was a very cute piece and to see Ian McKellen preach his sermon was an experience not to be forgotten.


This movie was suggested to me by a librarian co-worker of mine during college. She said she wasn't going to tell me what it was about and even blackened out the back cover of the VHS. She smiled as though plotting and walked away. I dashed home and haven't stopped watching it since. The language used blends poetry with oratory simplicity. The family is faulted in a righteous and enduring way that you want to be part of the farm too. Our heroin rushes in to a strange place with unknown relatives. She is a city girl, thrust upon Cold Comfort Farm. Are the Starkadders aware that their guest is set on tidying and making lovely their dear farm? Setting things as they should be, promoting and planting seeds of change. There are mysteries mentioned and owes due. Every little corner of this movie will enchant you; the writing is superb and greatly verbose. But truly the actors each take on and portray not a role, but the person. Supporting cast brings sparkles and bubbles to the movie. I find myself quoting from it often in life. Still laughing and remembering, "there will always be Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm."


If you are searching for comparisons to help you decide whether to watch "Cold Comfort Farm" imagine a slightly older "Pollyanna" going to live on a rundown version of "Babe's" English farm with a strange and bleak collection of her country cousins.

This is an excellent and very earthy adaptation of Stella Gibbon's 1932 satirical novel (which itself is an odd marriage of Hardy and Wodehouse). Where the village pub is named "The Condemned Man" and the cows are named Aimless, Feckless, Graceless, and Pointless. Both the novel and its adaptation are joyfully depressing and packed with literary eccentricity and subtle humor. If you like "Faulty Towers" then you can expect to get off on the humor. But if you prefer "Hot Shots! Part Deux", you should probably pass on "Cold Comfort Farm".

There are three possible viewer reactions: It's not funny. I didn't figure out it was a comedy until halfway through but then I found it hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing.

Kate Beckinsale plays Flora Poste (always referred to by her relatives as Robert Poste's daughter), a recently orphaned 19 year old who chooses to live with relatives (the Starkadders) she has never met, at gloomy Cold Comfort Farm in Sussex. Beckinsale, even more radiant than usual, pulls off a nice characterization of the resourceful yet snobbish heroine. Like Pollyanna, she is a catalyst for positive change, but they are calculated changes. Her instinctive snobbishness (Beckinsale has a real talent for this) is played for laughs since everyone would feel a bit superior and distanced from this eccentric collection of misfits.

The adaptation nicely incorporates Gibbons's subtle parody of Jane Austen romantic clichés, from the controlling madwoman in the attic to wood nymph poetess, to the quivering parishioners. Even the production design is a funny send-up of the standard BBC mini-series look.

This is really a terrific production, doubly so for Beckinsale fans.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Set in the late 1920s, this totally charming comedy alludes to many other films, sometimes subtly and sometimes obviously. A Gilbert and Sullivan mood is set up quickly and the film proceeds to a typical Gilbert and Sullivan ending. A young English lady, Flora Poste (Kate Beckinsale), was recently orphaned. Having an allowance of only £156 per year and no interest in work, she moves in with poor, depressed relatives. The family are convinced that there is a curse on them and their belief is self-fulfilling. The dwellers on the farm are similar to the Addams family without the humour. Flora's manipulations and positive thinking, change all of their lives for the better. This is a very charming and funny movie, with the fun being driven by exaggeration and positive change. It is good for many delightful viewings. PS: Look for allusions to Pollyanna, Gone with the Wind, Wuthering Heights, Great Expectations etc. Every time I see it I notice more.


Full of wonderful one-liners; my friends and I exchange quotes regularly. (See some of the Quotes elsewhere at this IMDb website.) We went to see the movie on a whim, and hadn't heard anything about it. At first, we didn't know it was a comedy. Then Ian McKellen's character gave his oft-quoted line about draining the well. The accent is a little difficult at times, and each time we watch the movie we find new humor. I'm still trying to determine the words to the song that the parishioners sing before Amos's sermon. The characters are wonderfully portrayed, and I've been a fan of Kate Beckinsale and Rufus Sewell ever since. This is the best performance given by Eileen Atkins.


Based on a thoroughly excellent novel of the same name by Stella Gibbons, this movie is grand. Kate does a lovely job as the Austen-esquire heroine who plunges herself into an uncivilized world for the benefit of its inhabitants. I cannot think of one poorly developed character in this movie. Mr. Mybug (Stephen Fry) does a grand job of 'that creep everyone's met at least once', and cousin Amos (Ian McKellan) is the best English spitfire I've seen on screen. Seth (Rufus Sewell) is an especially favorite character, and this is one of the most quotable movies in the house. While very tongue-in-cheek throughout most of the movie, the ending is exceedingly feel-good. If you enjoy British humor, or just listening to the accents, definitely check this out. "There'll be no butter in HELL!!!"


This is one of those little gems you'll be lucky to find in a video store if you're on the lookout for such an item, or, like me, are likely to find on movie channels such as IFC or Sundance, which is where I saw it. Kate Beckinsale plays a young lady among a decidedly strange group of relatives on an obscure English country farm and, while ostensibly there to write her first novel, brings change to the lives of everyone involved. All the players are delightfully involved in their characters and all seem genuinely committed to this quirky little piece which is both lighthearted and eminently watchable. A young Kate Beckinsale is captivating in her loveliness and expressiveness which is totally controlled and shows her to be a born actress. Definitely one to capture on DVD!


When I first watched this movie, I wasn't sure if I would like it, but as the story unfolded, I grew to love it more and more. This movie features a stellar cast which includes Kate Beckinsale, Sir Ian McKellan, Rufus Sewall, and Dame Eileen Atkins. The dry, witty, and very subtle humor in this film makes it all the more enchanting to watch and to quote. I sincerely recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys thinking about what they are laughing at, and who just loves British film-making, this movie is certainly one of the best! All praise to John Schlesinger for making such a wonderful masterpiece.


This has to be the best Jack Scalia outing I've seen in terms of budget ... which might not say much ... just like the story. It isn't worth a breath of air and neither is any mention of the cast. The F/X are passable for a low density movie of this order, but the entire contraption is void of anything mildly redeeming. The whole secret agent scenario is cliché and recycled and the characters might as well be talking color bars. It wouldn't have made a difference.

My one wish is that I had a briefcase like Jack Gracy (Scalia's character). In the movie his has a red light that when it goes off he know an unauthorized entry at a Russian Nuclear missile silo has occurred. Mine would be slightly different. It would still have a red light, but it would only go off when someone made a really good memorable action movie. This is not one of them.


It is set in some fictious Soviet country, terrorists take over a palace and the Scalia character has to come in to save the day. I liked the effect sequences of the Palace in the final scene. If you like typical action, you'll like this film.


Watched it on TV, started to wonder why others liked the explosions. Just a bad movie all around. They must have a lot of money in Hollywood to go ahead with this movie. I would like to read plots of movies that did not make the cut because they must be really horrible if this movie got made.

'The Postman' was a great action flick next to this.


It looks like they took Die Hard and moved it to an ex-soviet republic. It must have taken the writers a day to watch Die HArd and copy down the storyline and then another day to take the transpose the storyline and set it in another country.

Instead of fake terrorists robbing the safe, you have a fake coup to rob the treasury; one of the co-workers selling out Bonnie Bedelia here you have an embassy employee making the same deal. etc. Even the hero appearing in an undershirt at the end.

The stereotyping of the characters - the taxi driver who had cousins who could do anything was horrible, the villain you could tell by his goatee and the Soviet politician who drinks too much - is worthy of a movie from the cold war era.


When oh when will I learn that the bargain priced movies in the bin at Walmart are there for one reason. They're shoddy junk. "Act Of War" for a buck fifty was no exception. James Bond without the class. John LeCarre without the intelligence. The acting is bad. The plot is simplistic and predictable. As usual in these bang bang epics, the bad guys are all lousy shots. I know nothing about guns but I'm sure I could kill more people banging off an automatic weapon than this bunch. But then, if they hit their targets, the movie could be a good forty minutes shorter. (Which might not be a bad thing.)This indeed is one of those films that is so bad it's almost good. One suggestion. If you must buy bargain movies at Walmart, go for VHS rather than DVD. At least that way you can re-use the tape. I haven't yet found a use for old DVD's.


A Canadian conspiracy to destroy movies forever has come one step closer to fruition with the very bad 'Act of War.' The title is a declaration of what it intends to do the the larger body of world cinema, the forces of good, and your free time. This movie is a bad, bad, bad thing and I'm so sorry I spent time watching it. I've started to attend counseling and I'm happy to report that I do appear to be making a move towards recovery.

This movie is a clear sign that 'Telefilm Canada' is in the business of providing tax shelters and opportunities for tax write-offs. I'd just like to take a moment and apologize to the rest of the world for what my country has inflicted upon you. The four out of ten may seem generous but the film has so much intended humour (which is miserably unfunny) that the hilarity of the botched attempt actually makes this film easier to watch than much similar fare you'll find. I've seen worse -- I'm an idiot -- but I've seen worse.

Featuring no 'A-List' or 'B'List' players, one can't but hope that the producers might have tried to get a hold of 'C-List' material like the reliable Michael Dudikoff. Read that last line again with a straight face. I dare ya! Tragically, Dudikoff appears to have been busy on the weekend that this movie was filmed. How lucky are we that Jack Scalia stepped in to save the day instead? In fairness to Jack Scalia, he puts in as good of a performance as could be expected from a film which is never really sure about its own identity. Hampered by a very muddy script, terrible dialogue, goofy plot and botched satirical elements, the inmates are running the asylum. Is it a comedy, a spy thriller, an action film, a (bad) James Bond spoof, a film with a warning on nuclear terrorism? It tries to be all of these and succeeds in being none. The script has no focus, giving the director no focus. A focus-less director has no vision and therefore no control over the actors. The actors ham and mug shamelessly in front of the camera and one suspects they are just trying to add something to their reel that they can use as audition material for better projects.

The taxi driver is completely insufferable. The President is almost as bad. The bald general with the "I'm such a bad guy and you can tell if you look at my characteristic 'evilguy' goatee" beard is awful. The script is mortal wound number one. The acting is mortal wound number two. There are so many bad performances that the restraint to name only these three is unbelievable. Oh what the hell: the vice-president is over the top with his mustache twirling Snidely Whiplash performance. The satirically intended (but ultimately failing in the attempt) American general and his political equivalent are doing bad impersonations of Rod Steiger in 'Mars Attacks!' Jack Scalia looks like Laurence Olivier in comparison to the rest of the cast, but an Olivier who was older, tired and just needed some quick dough.

Don't even get me started on the soundtrack. Hilariously awful, it undercuts every single bit of credibility that the film aspires to have without exception. Find me a single moment where the music in this film helps to support the action or the tension. My own theme music plays in the background while I make that request. It's 'Mission:Impossible." The soundtrack is mortal wound number three. A shame really because it never gives this movie a chance from the opening credits to the mercifully not too far off end credits.

Paradoxically, this movie might thrive because of its awfulness. It is so bad that it is funny. One of those rare gems that are actually highly enjoyable with a few friends and a few drinks in. Just don't make them close friends because after they see this on your shelf, they'll never look at you the same way again. Oh for the days of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000.' They'd have a lot of fun with this one!


This is an insult to James Bond...They try to copy a 007 movie by using bad actors & bad scenario. What were they thinking??? You have to be fool to make a near movie! I give it nothing more than 1 out of 5 (and I am generous).


Interesting film, partly because Cooper is cast so completely against the type he is later to be best known for from his Capra films - that is of the rural innocent encountering the corruption of the city. This movie is much more in the transcendental tradition of Henry Hathaway's Peter Ibbetson, also starring Cooper and released the same year. I had never heard of Anna Sten but according to the posts she was a protégé of Samuel Goldwyn in one of her first Hollywood films. She does remind me of a fresh-faced Garbo. Overall the acting is fine and characters are complex, and the direction is up to King Vidor's high standards.

A fine film. The ending in particular is bittersweet.


I had heard about this film and about how underrated it was,then last week i saw a copy of it on ebay on VHS PAL UK.I was really surprised as i didn't think it had ever been released in the UK.It must be one of the rarest videos in Britain as sadly not many people have heard of it.Luckily i won it for just over £3 not bad eh.So if any one else is interested in buying a copy,there must be others available in Britain,if you really look around.I couldn't wait to watch this film,and i must say i wasn't disappointed.Its starts off a mildly amusing story that suddenly gets sadder and sadder until it reaches a climax to a very tragic ending.I must admit the last 10 seconds of this film does bring tears to the eyes,i wont say why,but try and see this movie and you will see.The acting between Gary Cooper and Anna Sten is first rate,her character is very likable as she is totally unselfish,and is trying to please everyone,so she does deserve happiness.Garys character,well he is married and his wife is not a monster and she does love him,so you feel sorry for her as well,i think you have to decide for yourself in a triangle like this someone is always going to get hurt,but you don't know who.Also this is a very early film showing us cultural differences and the sort of conflicts that can arise when two people from very different back grounds want to be together.Can it work?he is from a literate sophisticated family,she is from a poor immigrant family that is still trying to learn new ways.The answer is if two people really love each other then they can over come their differences as true love conquers all,i think overall this was the strongest message that comes out of this film,to some people the married issue may be the point of the film.Any way this is a very haunting film and well worth watching if you get the chance.


Anna Sten deserved and Oscar for her portrayal, not to be made fun of and practically run out of town. Which just proves my theory that most critics tastes are in their mouth. I invited anyone who enjoys a movie of old, when it was about entertainment rather than depraved education to make the attempt to find a copy, sit back and enjoy. Goldwyn COULD pick them. Anna Sten and Cooper were something great in this movie.


I had no expectations for this movie before I saw it, expect a high regard for Gary Cooper and director King Vidor, and neither disappointed me in this nice effort from them.

As mentioned before, this story concerns married writer Gary Cooper --one not unlike F. Scott Fitzgerald -- who has lost his groove, and had his latest novel rejected by his publisher. He is forced to give up his Manhattan apartment and move back to the abandoned family homestead in Connecticut. There he meets a community of Polish immigrants, and slowly falls in love with beautiful young Polish girl Anna Sten, who he had hired to help around the house.

My first thought about this movie as I watched it, was that the leading man was more beautiful than the leading lady, as Gary Cooper certainly looked fabulous and was photographed with great sensitivity. Cooper in his modern American clothes certainly had the upper hand over Sten, who was always wearing dowdy traditional Eastern European dresses and hats. She was almost completely covered up in these costumes for the duration, and it would have been a treat to see her in American garb.

The speed that Cooper's character falls in love with the young girl is questionable, especially considering he has a beautiful, funny and intelligent wife played by Helen Vinson. Perhaps it's the Polish girl's youth and innocence he's attracted to, but I think he's not as heroic as the movie-makers intend him to be. The wife does leave him alone in snowy New England to work on his novel, but he needn't stab her in the back by falling in love with another. Cooper's character comes off somewhat of a cad, and I never was able to sympathize with him enough to make me really care about his final happiness.

The movie paints the wife as a shallow but glamorous socialite, caring only for the next party of get-away weekend at his expense. But at about two-thirds into the movie and after she has read his manuscript, she has a strong and wonderful scene with Sten where she discusses the hypothetical endings for the novel. Vinson really shines in this scene, which includes one incredibly long take with at least three pages of dialog. I thought both Vinson and the often-maligned Sten made it all work very nicely. This was the moment when you can see the strength under the airy facade, of Vinson's character.

The movie takes a very dark turn partway through, and some of the scenes really rise to the level of verbal and physical abuse, something I hadn't expected to see. But the production values are great, Greg Toland's camera work shines, and the locations and sets are really convincing.

But what somewhat bothered me in its intensity were these two scenes with Sten and her family. How brutal is the scene where her father and Ralph Bellamy want her to watch Bellamy slaughter pigs? I mean she said about 5 times that it makes her sick, and they kept insisting. And then finally after she runs off -- she and the audience get to hear the sound effect of pigs squealing as they're being butchered. Didn't expect this movie to go there...

And then when her father, who was introduced as an amiable figure, gets so angry at Sten that he slaps her face with such intensity. Seemed pretty violent by today's standards...

Finally, I admire and still wonder about the ambiguous ending. Obviously, the Polish girl has died. Vinson is standing next to Cooper as he gazes out the window. She speaks to him and then he remembers aloud how Sten would look coming up to the house. He sees her in his imagination. The camera pulls back, and now Vinson is no longer in the room or the scene. Did she leave him after all? Did she decide she didn't want to stay with a man who had such a love for another woman?


Yesterday I re-watched "The Wedding Night" (1935), this time with my wife who had never seen it before. For me it was like watching it all over again for the first time. I think that this happens with great pictures, like this one. She also loved the film and I felt so gratified by that, because sadly this type of quiet, sensitive films is not the kind of film which you can watch with anybody and can be fully appreciated as it should be.

I'm a fan of "the Gary Cooper" of the late '20s and 1930s, in my opinion some his best films were made around this time, before his definitive screen persona was established, especially in the early thirties. He gives a sensitive, balanced, nuanced, performance in a film that looks like a slice of life. His character is so unarchetypical, so honestly portrayed by him, that you get immersed totally in this beautiful love story. And this is no by chance, because the film was directed by the masterful King Vidor.

Praise must also go to the two actresses that vividly portray the two women in Cooper's life: the unjustly forgotten and underrated Russian actress Anna Sten and the equally unfairly forgotten actress Helen Vinson. Miss Vinson portrays without falling in the caricature, a shallow, but at the same time likable society woman, who thinks that life is a never-ending party and does not take marriage as seriously as it should be taken, realizing it too late. Miss Sten plays the naïve but strong-willed Polish woman who reluctantly at first, begins to fall for the writer portrayed by Cooper. The scene in which Cooper reads to her the first chapters of the new (autobiographical) book he is writing, is most telling in this aspect; because Miss Sten does not fall for the dashing, tall, handsome Cooper, but for his character's sensitiveness, feelings and emotions which she apprehends by means of this book in progress.

In short, none of the three principals of this story incur in stereotypical portrayals, which helped me to connect with their characters' emotions, with its virtues and flaws.

A wonderful experience, which with no doubt I'll repeat in the future, because this film deserves many viewings and is just my kind of film; a simple love story, unpretentiously directed, that does not aim at over sentimentality and does not fall into the maudlin which can ruin a movie, with superb, unaffected performances by the leads.


Loved the movie. Old fashion love story despite the perhaps arguable marriage angle distraction. The scenery is BEAUTIFUL, especially good for a cold winter night's viewing by a fireplace. I thought the subtle differences in what was acceptable in the 30s and today was quite remarkable too. Especially when Cooper sat on the end of the bed during his conversation (which was by itself quite the fuss back than)with the girl. Overall the story also gives an interesting review of immigration and the nation's feelings about it. Hard work was certainly central to the movie's theme and of course the end is tragic as the guy doesn't get the girl.


Watched this film the other day expecting the worst from a 1930s film but was surprised it was really quite good.Its a story of two people from different cultural backgrounds who fall in love,the biggest problem is he is married,so the relationship is doomed to failure.I must admit i didn't care for the wife at all,as looking at this film from a 1930s aspect a woman always stood by her husband no matter what.This one deserts him purely because she misses her socialite lifestyle in New York,if she really loved him she would have stayed with him.I found her totally selfish,and a 1930s audience probably would have felt the same.When you watch these old films you have to forget your 21st century attitudes,as what seems acceptable now wasn't back then, she should have stayed with him.I hated Frederick and the father he was a pig and a bully who didn't care for his daughters happiness,which leads to a tragic conclusion i wont say why.I was really hoping that Gary cooper would ditch the wife then tell Frederick and her father where to get off and run away with the Polish girl for the perfect happy ending,but alas it wasn't to be.I don't understand why this film is forgotten because it is quite outstanding for its day.


Gary Cooper, in a thinly veiled characterization of F. Scott Fitzgerald, is a writer living with a socialite wife in New York City and doing quite well on the party circuit. But he's lost his muse and literally has to move back to his family's ancestral home in Connecticut where the rent is free.

While there he gets involved with some Polish immigrants who have bought a lot of acreage in the Nutmeg state for tobacco growing and farmer Jean Hersholt wants some of Cooper's land. Needing the cash, Cooper agrees. He finds the people there fascinating in an sociological sort of way. And he finds Hersholt's daughter Anna Sten far more intriguing.

The Wedding Night was supposed to be the launching of a new Sam Goldwyn discovery in Anna Sten. But for some reason she didn't catch on with the public though she does give a fine performance. There's a lengthy list of speculative reasons why she never caught on, some have been mentioned by other reviewers.

However the best performance in the film is Helen Vinson as Cooper's wife. She starts off giving the impression she's a flighty airhead, but actually that's not the case. Vinson usually was playing the other woman in her film career, here she reverses type as the wronged wife. You do feel sorry for her, she's done nothing to deserve Cooper's infidelity.

For those who are curious about Anna Sten as she's become something of a symbol as to how not to showcase a talent, The Wedding Night might be worth a look.


Tony is a writer and can't get his latest book published in NYC so he and his wife go to a farmhouse he inherited in Connecticut where it'll be cheaper to live. While in Connecticut, he meets his Polish neighbors and their daughter, Manja. While Tony's wife is away and his cook has left him in the dead of winter, Manja helps Tony around the house and provides inspiration for his latest book. An attraction grows stronger, but Manja's hand in marriage is promised to a local farmer. Can two people promised to others and from very different worlds be happy? How will the book end? Film focuses strongly on Tony and Manja, but could have rounded out the wife's character a bit more - overall an enjoyable film but the ending's a bit melodramatic as most were for the time.


I just watched this movie this morning on Turner Cable Movies. Gary Cooper, in my opinion, was the most handsome movie actor, ever. Writer Tony and his wife Dora move to Connecticut to his ancestral home. Actually a beautiful big country home that I would love to live in! He meets his Polish neighbors who buy a plot of land from him for $5,000. His socialite wife hates the house and the desolation of living in the country. Gary (Tony) gives his wife the $5,000 so she can go back to New York to see her old friends and "shop." The daughter of the Polish neighbor, Manya, delivers milk to Tony every morning, then cooks him breakfast, and eventually comes to take care of the house. Tony starts writing a book about Manya and her family. Manya and Tony start falling in love. But Manya is committed to marry a man whom she does not love, Frederik played by Ralph Bellamy. Then the wife comes back, and Tony tells her he wants a divorce, that he loves Manya. The wedding between Frederik and Manya takes place, but Frederik gets totally drunk and realizes that Manya loves Tony. Frederik goes off to Tony's house to kill him. Then there is the tragedy that ends the movie.

When I was watching the movie, I was wondering where this movie was filmed. There is no "filming location" listed in IMDb. It is quite obvious that there are several outdoor scenes, not on a sound stage.

A lovely movie. I enjoyed it tremendously.


When people talk of a film being dated, "The Wedding Night" is a perfect example of this.

Anna Sten looks at you from the screen with those sad eyes. You know you're in for a tear-jerker. By the title, I thought I was in for a comedy. Comedy? That's a laugh in itself.

Instead, the viewer is subjected to a tragic film on par with Anna Karenina. The only thing is that we only have to be subjected to an hour and twenty four minutes of this soap opera junk.

There are two good performances here. Sten, since she so vulnerable and Sig Ruman, who portrays her strict by the book father. Yes, this is old fashioned about a girl spending a night with a man, a married man, but after all, the film was made in 1935.

Gary Cooper plays an author in this film who is obviously suffering from writer's block. That all changes when he meets, by chance, a young Polish girl, Miss Sten, who inspires him to write a novel. The problem is that Cooper is married and that Sten is engaged to a blustering Ralph Bellamy.

The tragedy at the end of this film will make you shed a tear for about a minute. Why? You'll be so glad that this film is over.


For some unknown reason, the industry 'suits' have decided to black-list Sylvester Stallone, not giving him large leading roles, and when they give him a role, they refuse to heavily market his films. This trend started, I believe, sometime during the early 90s, probably after his last big hit, "Cliffhanger." Nevertheless, Stallone has continued to make films, most of them actually pretty good.

That said, "Get Carter" is probably one of Stallone's better films of the last ten years (I think it's second to "Cop Land"). He portrays his role as the 'financial adjuster' (as he described it) Jack Carter. The remainder of the supporting cast, including Mickey Rourke, Rachel Leigh Cook, John C. McGinley, Alan Cumming and Michael Caine, each deliver convincing performances, conveying their characters' emotions with amazing quality.

I really noticed the way the film's editing and photography changed towards the end of the film, after beating up McCarty (McGinley) in the elevator. The way the film swiftly cuts ahead a couple of seconds is simply spectacular to watch. The many odd photography angles describe the uncertainty of the scenes, and make me feel unsure as well.

Living in the Seattle area, seeing the great landmarks I see every day on the screen is quite something else. And for the record, it doesn't rain nearly as much here as people think.

If you haven't watched this film and have heard all the negative reviews given by the industry-paid critics, ignore them and rent it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.


I simply do not get what certain people have against this movie. Sure, it's not a cinematic breakthrough, but it is very sharp, smart and focused. Jack Carter's brother, Richie, dies under mysterious circumstances. Jack goes back to his home town to check things out and perhaps find out the truth. What he finds is not all that easy to get to grips with.

This is not your usual run of the mill revenge movie. The story has some layers to it and I am surprised to see that people did not appreciate that. Jack Carter is not a good guy. He is a bad man working in bad town doing bad things. Always was a bad guy. But he reaches a moment in his life when the things that take place between him and his boss's girl Audrey, the things that he finds out about his brother and his brother's family, all of them act as a catalyst. For once in his life he tries to set things right. How does he do that? By doing what he knows to do. He does bad things. The guys he goes up against are a little a out of the reach of the law. To wait for justice to set things right is not a concept Jack is familiar with. The only things he knows is to take care of his own dirty laundry. And at the moment his life is his dirty laundry. He was not there for his brother, for his niece and he missed some oportunities... Time to set things right. But he does only bad things in this movie. He kills people by shooting them, by throwing them out of the balcony, by beating them up in the elevator. WHY? Because these are the same things that would happen to him if he let his guard down.

Great acting performances form most guys in the movie. Stallone seems to have found some serious acting genes within himself. This is some of his best work and his best is very good. Not only for the genre. Although when looking back at Oscar (his 1991 comedy), D-Tox (a very underrated movie) and Copland I have to say that this is not a one off. No sir. When the script, the director and the rest of the cast are good he can act big time. Michael Caine made a very good movie called get Carter back in 1971. I love that movie and is always one of my favorites to watch on Turner Classic Movies. The remake, I felt, is just as good. Sure it has the sort of usual happy ending, but that is just the American Way of ending action movies. They love a hero. Mickey Rourke, Alan Cummings, Michael Caine and Rachael Leigh-Cook are very good in this one. Somehow Miranda Richardson seemed a little over the top in her angry widow/mother scenes.

Michael Caine acted in this one simply because he knew it was good. The movie could have been done without him, without a doubt. But he did it because unlike other remakes, this one is just as good as the original. It has it's own style, a somewhat different story and a happier ending. Otherwise, they are two very similar movies. And even if some consider the original as better, they should not write this one off. The layers are there, you just have to dig. And this only because the producers did not get this movie. The director, the cast, everybody got this movie and knew what they were making except for the producers who seem to have been thinking of another movie. Michael Caine seems to have given his seal off approval to Stallone's acting in this one. The producers wanted a classic 80's action movie. At least that's what I feel. So, this is a very good movie. Just as good (or almost as good, depending on how you look at it) as the original. It has great acting, sharp directing, nice car chase scenes, nice action scenes, some great moments, some wonderful music, a simple yet effective storyline that keeps you guessing and wanting to see more. And as someone put it, crap like XXX, The Fast and The Furious (+sequel, at least is has some cars), Charlie's Angels (+sequel. could not even watch) and other such teen-hormone-slang-flash-driven movies have a higher rating, IT SIMPLY ISN'T RIGHT!!!!!! 7.5/10


OK, the original version of this movie wasn't imposing so why bother to remake it? The storyline is Stallone plays a Luca Brazi type mob enforcer who heads home for his brother's funeral. When he gets home he learns some of his old cronies were responsible so you know the drill....revengeeeee! I say the only reason this movie is watchable besides the usual Stallone delivery is because of Rachel Leigh Cook...this was back when she was in her true prime and she is GORGEOUS in the movie.

The movie is more cerebral than action so if you're into that sort of thing give it a look, otherwise better bring some pillows and a blanket.

The highlight of the movie is the opening scene where Carter beats the shyt out of the dude and Con tries to talk him out of it 4 out of 10


I wanted to love "Get Carter". Because I love mobster movies, movies that take place in Vegas, and Stallone is one of my all time fav actors and him playing a hitman, in Vegas was a match made in heaven, but the film still sucked. Had some good action scenes but it was all still a bore. I did found myself looking at my watch a lot and wondering when this was going to be over. Here is a little info about the story. Sly plays a bad-ass hitman who is a former prisoner too and he finds out that his brother has been killed and now he is pissed and he will make the killer pay. Been there. Done that. But hey, the acting is still much better than a lot of other crappy action movies. Sly and crew will impress you with the acting and you may think it is a shame that great actors like that wasted their time making this movie, The flick made Sly look like Rocky again because he was made out to be very tough. Which was cool because I was glad to see Rocky come out again. Somewhere in Sly's body, Rocky is in there lurking who comes out every now and then to make us cheer. And I don't blame Sly, Mike, or Mick for this bad movie. They are all great actors and did great in this, the story itself just sucked. Course, if you ever are at home on a Friday night and your just typing away at the computer and the TV is on and you just want something to listen to, "Get Carter" is not a bad choice. Because every now and then you may just turn away from the puter' to see what Sly and the boys are up to doing. And "Get Carter" was much better than Sly's newest film, "Driven".


The Y2K Get Carter remake of the great 1971 film of the same name is puzzling to me. First of all, why anyone would want to remake a great film is beyond me. Second of all, if one is going to remake a great film (assuming one is trying make another great film to go along side of it) they might as well actually remake it well! But no, the producers go and get a director who never made a good film previously to this stint on the resurrected Get Carter (and think of a living dead sort-of resurrection), Stephen T. Kay. Way to go. Kay brings to the film a sort of FX-TV look, complete with a neo-MTV soundtrack. Yeah, put that in your pipe and smoke it....

Then they get writer David McKenna to write the screenplay. McKenna had the Oscar-nominated American History X under his belt at that point (though the Oscar-nom went to actor Edward Norton), but he followed up with the critically-panned Body Shots. One would think that would have been a red flag, but hey, luckily I do not have to defend the choice. So under McKenna's pen we go from a brutal crime flick about one man's darkness in the 1971 film to a crime flick still, but now Carter is the Angel of Justice or something and far less dimensional. On top of that, the story is changed so we have a different ending that is FAR less powerful than that of the original Get Carter. The dialogue gets murdered as well. For example, we go from Caine's Carter's intimidating "like p**s-holes in the snow" description of Eric's eyes to Stallone's Carter's laughable "like cat-p**s in the snow" description of Cyrus' (whoever that is) eyes. "Cat-p**s"? are you freakin' kidding me? How did we get to "cat-p**s"?

Then we get to the cast which, in my opinion, is hit-or-miss. But hey, at least we have a couple of hits. Miranda Richardson does well in her supporting role as Gloria Carter, Jack's sister in law; Rachael Leigh Cook also does a good job in her supporting role as Doreen Carter, Jack's niece; and I really think that Sylvester Stallone did the best job he could with the material as Jack Carter. Sure, he is no Caine, but who is? Stallone relatively holds his own throughout the film despite being surrounded by a mostly horrid cast. John C. McGinley, Alan Cumming, and Mickey Rourke are all painfully bad. You know the feeling you get when an actor is so bad you feel embarrassed for them? These three supporting performances in Get Carter are perfect examples of this!

Then we have Michael Caine - of whom I honestly cannot decide whether or not gives a good performance because I cannot get over what a backstabbing Judas he is for being apart of this film in the first place! Caine has admitted that he does a lot of films just for the cash, and this has got to be one of those jobs, it just has to be!

Run, don't walk, to the great original 1971 Get Carter film instead of this atrocity.


...but it never did! It's actually good. Some very good acting, some very good, well-developed characters and a plot that you actually get involved in and care about. At first, it keeps looking like the kind of movie that's going to beat you over the head with every simplistic character motivation or plot point, but it doesn't. It actually leaves a lot unexplained, to great affect. Even the third act, in which many movies, even good ones, fall completely to pieces, is solid here. The 4.6 rating is really not fair, and is more about how much some people just DESPISE Stallone and anything he does, no matter what. I generally hate about 80% of what Stallone puts out, but when I like him, I like him a lot. And in this movie, he's good. Mickey Rourke is good (starts out strong but gets a little two dimensional as the movie develops, but that's OK, he's still fascinating to watch). John C. McGinley is John C. McGinley-good. Rachel Leigh Cook is very good, and actually great and very moving in one scene in particular. It's really not a bad movie at all.


This film undeservedly took a bashing when it was released and since then Get Carter '71 fans have insistently tried to bury it. However, in the 7 years since it's release I've come to realize that this isn't the worst film ever made. It's not even the worst remake ever made.

This film felt more like a stylized version of the gritty Michael Caine version which has earned its classic status in British cinema. The one thing I liked about this version versus the original was the fact that they humanized the characters. I could relate more to Carter even if that wasn't the point of the original story. The original film gives us a Jack Carter who will attack or kill anyone he suspects was part of the murder of his brother thus turning it into a hate filled, vengeance fest. There's no character development in Michael Caine's version which explains the campy, cult status it has earned as being a low budget gangster film full of ruthless characters. It was hard to care about any of the characters in the original and films usually lose points with me when I cannot fully connect with a character. If they don't care why should I as a viewer? Regardless of we were supposed to like a character or not in the original I feel that's an essential ingredient for a good film.

With that being said the film still suffers it's drawbacks. Mainly the stylized vision of this version will turn off fans of the original from the start. Also, the main villain wasn't convincing enough and I'm talking about Alan Cumming's character. The ending was too hunky-dory but Mickey Rourke was exceptional in the short amounts of time he was on screen.

This film is entertaining while not standing up to the 1971 classic, it does stand up as a good Stallone film and a worthy edition to an action fans DVD collection.


First things first, I want to clear something up. The critics are wrong again. Worst remake ever? Get serious. Not even close. Has any of this armchair experts bothered to watch the new "Stepford Wives" or "Planet of the Apes"? I can easily list two dozen remakes that sucked far far worse. With that out of the way, I want to say I liked Stallone he was a obvious choice and especially Mickey Rourke. Rourke had just the right mix of sleaze ball zen master attitude and macho coolness to pull it off. Caine was a perfect addition to the mix. Test audiences agreed. Rachel Leigh Cook was a tad weak but not bad. Same goes for the actress who played her mother. McGinley as Con McCarty was both funny and enjoyable. Loved his character the most. Even though it's not a loyal remake, it is a fun and hip remake.


This film is awful. What keeps it from being a 1 (1-10 scale) is the lack of a zero choice for such movies as Robot Monster, Best Defense and Fair Game. The editing is terrible, the script is worse and the acting is the very worst ("You don't wanna know me." -- Another stupid attempt at starting a catch-phrase).

Gretchen Mol had the good sense not to have her name on this mess.


This movie was not a mediocre remake. Though I haven't seen the original I thought the acting was done well, and the characters all had some heart put into them. Sly did a heck of a job portraying a character who if brought back to any degree of real life would have been better. If you had been put into this movie, I doubt you would have done better! Good Work,Sly!


Sly looked cool and tough in the trailer and the poster and the cover of the video box. He's a little girlie man in the movie. This is one of the worst "action" movies ever made. The director didn't know how to move it along. It reminded me of a cheap movie called "the swap" which was called something else and had footage of a young Robert DeNiro in it. You know the movie I'm talking about, you saw it at Suncoast for $6.99 and almost bought it because it had a big picture of Robert DeNiro on it. THAT movie is better than this.

Really, I'm not kidding. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.


What a waste of talent and cinematography. I saw the DVD version and the photography and setting was great; very crisp and rich. The casting was fine and the script was a proven one. Must have been really bad direction?? Car chases were fine, but I especially enjoyed the one in the Christmas tree lot! I thought it also kind of totally fell apart in the last 1/3


Re-lace my tennis shoes, count the number of cracks on my bedroom wall, and rearrange the fuzz in my navel. These are just a few of the things I would have liked to do instead of watch this movie. I wasn't tired or stressed, I had just finished off a pot of Green Mountain coffee and I still managed to doze off for a minute or two during the movie. The plot was ok but the best way to describe this movie is just plain boring. There is barely any action (unless you call seeing Stalone's aged and vein-ridden muscles action) and when there was a car chase or fight scene, it was just ... boring. There were a few twists to the story but these were barely enough to keep me watching until the end. If you have a choice between shaving every hair on your body with a rusty razor while standing on a beach ball or watching this movie, I would go with the rusty razor.


In this ass kicking, mother eating high tech action film the former king of Hollywood once again gives a water proof performance in the role of Jack Carter. The film is a full blooded hit in the mix of excitement and sensibility and I wish and hope that everyone goes and sees it!


It is worth the price of admission, but I did not like the quick-editing techniques in the movie. I was with the movie but 20 minutes before the end the story could have been written better. Just a little less vengefulness was needed in certain places.

All and all, Sly Stallone's acting is enough to make this film entertaining. It is good to see him put himself and his style of acting into the film.

I might add, movie score and incidental music was superb Good compositioning and orchestration. Good Seattle scenery, and some Pacific Northwest scenes.