Corporate America can be a very cruel place. The constant attention towards competition, survival of the fittest, and determination towards top performance can easily drive the sanest employee into an early stage of insanity. Thus, due to these pressures, employees are constantly found in a heated battle for the top spot or the illusive management position. Many will step directly onto your abdomen to ensure a promotion or pay increase. This form of random competition in Corporate America is very rare to capture, much less on film, but famed director Neil LaBute did a bit of the impossible. LaBute took the pressures of competition in Corporate America and camouflaged them using some stereotypes linked to "men" in the workplace. While some will argue that LaBute is doing nothing but exploiting male sexism/egoism and only built a stronger "glass ceiling" for women, I saw this completely different. Much like others, In the Company of Men initially enraged me due to the harsh treatment and depiction of women in the workplace, but then it occurred to me, that isn't what LaBute wants to show. As I watched this film a second time, I saw the real reason that LaBute created this picture. He wanted, and successfully accomplished, to show that you have to be smart both in your personal and business life if you want to succeed in this demolishing corporate world.

LaBute's approach to this ingenious subject reminded me of how Soderbergh used "sex" to debunk his story in sex, lies, and videotape. From the opening scene, we think we know what this movie is going to be about. We think we understand that this is just going to be another "dark" comedy about how cruel the corporate world can be to women, but wildly LaBute (like Soderbergh) will pull the hypothetical wool over your eyes if you are not careful. This is not a movie about sexism (while it is used quite often to hide the real truth), but instead the power of manipulation, the power of emotion, and the ability to use your friends to reach the top. This is the ultimate betrayal film. After watching this film, I read some reviews that discussed how viewers hated LaBute for doing what he did to Christine, and that made me a bit angry. I too was disturbed by Eckhart's performance, but by being upset about what happened to Christine, you miss the truth behind this film. When I finished watching this movie, I was more upset with LaBute for what he did to Howard (Matt Malloy) than with Christine.

How did this dramatic change occur? How could a viewer feel more sympathy for Howard than with the weeping Christine? LaBute has this amazing ability to cast believable actors that mold themselves well within their roles. Matt Malloy plays the perfect ying to Aaron Eckhart's yang. The two could not be closer to polar opposites, but the chemistry between them keeps us connected and glued to the screen. Their relationship reminded me of every Hollywood movie where the popular jock is great friends with the insecure geek. Malloy and Eckhart's relationship reminded me of the frat boy who happens to be a friend with the computer nerd. There is no initial understanding of why these two are friends or why they have anything in common. Sure, they went to the same college, but does that constitute life-long friendship? I believe from the beginning of this film, and possibly further into the pre-text, Eckhart has Malloy on a plan. We don't see the plan initially, but when it comes into light at the end, it hits us deep within our gut, giving us more pain than the Christine incident. How did LaBute set this up so well? Again, I state, Malloy and Eckhart. These two were methodical, malicious, and very close to perfection with their characters. We believed them. They sold us on themselves, which needed to happen for LaBute to make his point. Stacy Edwards is decent, but honestly LaBute could have had anyone in that role and we would have bought it. Why? Again, Malloy and Eckhart.

LaBute did not just give us impassioned characters with devoted actors, but he also gave us an amazing story. He used the power of language to give us our opening, plot, downfall, climax, and twisty ending. It is not often in Hollywood that you see this technique used. It takes a combination of both a great (and engrossing) story with sublime characters. We already know that we had the characters, but what about the story made it worth watching over and over and over again. Having seen American Psycho several times, I felt like LaBute had read Bret Easton Ellis' novel over and over. He embodied the spirit and insanity of corporate America nearly as well as American Psycho director Mary Harron did. The pacing was tight, the six weeks seemed to fly by because we were glued to the results. LaBute kept us glued to the screen by shocking us with sexist remarks, macho thinking, and corporate taboos. Then, when he thought that we were not paying attention, he gave us the ending of a lifetime. The writing for this film was quick, powerful, and thought provoking, which nearly symbolizes this film. LaBute should have won an Oscar for this powerful and intelligent piece of cinema.

Overall, I thought this film was vile, belittling, and grotesquely unsettling  which is why I cannot wait to add it to my collection. LaBute proves to us once again why he is a master behind the camera as well as a commander with his pen. I read a comment that stated that Eckhart's Chad is the epitome of a villain, and I could not agree more. Neil LaBute has given us his first in a very long line of challenging, yet beautiful, cinema.

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


This is a totally unexpected find, a movie that you know nothing about when you sit down to watch it, yet totally engrosses you and blows you away. While the plot involves the seduction of a vulnerable female by two co-workers, the sub-plot is a dark look at the corporate world with an ending that will hit you in the gut. In the Company of Men should be watched by men, only with other men, and not with their significant female others. One of my favourites. Highly recommended for those who like dark comedies.


The executives Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) have just been rejected by their mates. While traveling for a six weeks temporary assignment in another office, they plot an evil game to get even with women. They plan to seduce a vulnerable woman and dump her with her feelings and self-esteem completely destroyed. When they meet the deaf secretary Cristina (Stacy Edwards), they find their perfect victim. However, things get complicated when Howard falls in love for Cristina.

The first time I saw "In the Company of Men" on 08 April 2000, I was really disturbed with this movie, which has been recently elected the number 28 in the ranking of the best fifty independent movies promoted by a cinema magazine. I decided to reevaluate my fist view, and I did not change my original opinion that it is a gem of cruelty. The character of Chad is actually the personification of evil, not those caricatures that we usually see in other movies, but a very real one that we face in our works, clubs or social lives. Chad is charming, handsome and charismatic on his outside, but rotten, cold and malevolent inside, manipulating and destroying other people for his self-satisfaction. Howard is also a very real character, that type of stupid guy with lack of personality and self-esteem that is easily used by others, becoming a loser in the end. And the poor Cristina is the innocent victim of this nasty game with her initial pure and later broken heart. The performances of Stacy Edwards, convincing that she is actually deaf, and Aaron Eckhart, with his cynical character, deserved a nomination to the Oscar. The debut of Neil LaBute could not be better. For those who liked this film, I recommend "The Shape of Things" (2003), from the same director. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Na Companhia de Homens" ("In the Company of Men")


*****************Possible spoiler******************

Intense and sometimes shocking movie about two ignorant men who decide to rage their own private war on women. The sense of 'justice' our main characters employ taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. Be warned; the ending may leave a knot in your stomach, but a lesson on the way not to treat people who have done you no wrong. Brilliant film making.


Neil Labute's in the company of men is a misogynistic look at the way men has to conquer women in and out of the bedroom. Aaron Eckhart plays a womanizer who makes a bet with a fellow co-worker to seduce a young deaf woman, and dump her in order to feed their misogynistic egos. In their pursuit of this innocent woman, they wine and dine her, and ultimately humiliate her in such a way that can only be describes as inhuman. Neil Labute's psychological masterpiece is a very sobering look at the game both sexes play, and the cruelty that we can inflict on ourselves.

Prepare to be disturbed.


In the Company of Men is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. The characters are sick, hateful and sadistic. Do not be surprised if the writer/director makes the same movie over and over and over again. He has nothing to say except "men are evil."

This movie hates men, a particularly strong version of self-hatred. Men are vicious, men are cruel, men are full of hatred, men are animals. Women, on the other hand, are portrayed as virginal, innocent, gentle, gullible, weak, and finally victims.

Oh poor little deaf girl! Why not make her a bunny rabbit? Oh, vicious yuppies! Why not make them wolves? Please. This fairy tale is idiotic.

The movie is more than just stupid and simplistic, however. It is degrading. You watch this movie and you want to take a shower. You wish you had amnesia. You are angry that you lost your money, your dignity, and 2 hours out of your life watching this unspeakable horror.

Do you have a soul? This movie will kill it. Do you have a brain? This movie will numb it. A movie for sadists and masochists. The Graduate is art. Red is art. La Dolce Vita is art. This is a filmmaker dropping a psychological turd on paper and charging you six dollars to see it.


That's a big statement, but I stand behind it without reservation. This is my favorite movie of the past decade and it easily makes my top five films of all time. First off, don't come in expecting a stylish, extravagant film with excellent cinematography. Neil Labute's direction is the epitome of minimalism, with virtually no camera movement and entire scenes played out in one shot. I'm not totally sure, but I'd say there are maybe two or three medium close-ups in the entire film, and that's it. The characters are always viewed from a distance, reflecting Labute's background in theater (if you like this, by the way, read Bash, it will blow your mind) and allowing his actors to be as realistic and naturalistic as possible. Contrary to popular belief, stage acting is more natural than film acting; Labute's distance and long takes create a realism that is rarely seen on celluloid.

This film is pretty much all dialogue, but this is some of the best-written dialogue I have ever heard. I don't think any man can watch this movie without recognizing some of the conversations that take place in this film. Aaron Eckhart and Matt Molloy are pitch perfect as the chauvinist, attractive, and ultimately evil Chad and the nerdy, pathetic, and ultimately emotionally doomed Howard. Stacy Edwards as the deaf Christine is also very strong; in fact, when I saw her in another movie speaking normally I almost fell out of my chair. I won't say much about the plot, for this is one of those movies that's really better to go in knowing nothing and watch the sickening events unfold. Let me just say that this film has a twist ending that marks one of the few moments in film that truly shocked me. In fact, I challenge anyone to sit still through this scene; I've seen the movie five times and it still makes me squirm in my seat. If you're looking for a big shock, look no further than this masterpiece, but don't expect a cheap thrill. Next to Vertigo, I don't think any film has hit me with a greater psychological impact. Oh, and if you're a female, and you don't want to become a lesbian, don't see this movie. Period. 10/10


I first saw this film a few years ago. I was so utterly disgusted and horrified (mostly because it was billed as a "comedy"), I never wanted to see it again. Ever.

Then, recently, I saw it again. I was still disgusted and horrified, but (since I learned a lot about abnormal psychology during the intervening years), I saw how brilliant "In the Company of Men" truly is...I've watched it many times since.

This is not a film for just anyone to see. This is almost a film I wish no one would ever have to see. I think there maybe ought to be a warning label attached to it. BEWARE: EXTREME CRUELTY WITHIN!

But for those who have the stomach for it, "In the Company of Men" is a fascinating excursion into the dark world of Sadistic Personality Disorder. The "protagonist" (Aaron Eckhart), is a perfect example of this psychological malady. His little buddy (Matt Maloy) is a study in Dependent Personality Disorder. The girl "they" decide to torment (Stacy Edwards) is nothing but a sweet, innocent bystander.

It's a whole lot of tough going, emotionally...and I think that's the whole point.

The way author/director Neil LaBute has crafted this disturbing, compelling work is how I wish creators of positive, heartwarming works would go about their business. I love a good, happiness-affirming movie. I'm a dork, I know. But I'd love to see a "happy-inducing" film grab onto my psyche the way "In the Company of Men" did.

It's something.

It's really something.


"In The Company Of Men" is a simple story that is told in a simple way. A lot of shots are still frames that last for about 10 minutes, which centers the dialog and gives the movie a realistic feeling. And as scary as it may seem, "In The Company Of Men" is very realistic.

There are people like Chad and Howard out there. Even though few are really quite as devilish as Chad is, many who have a certain amount of power and income behave that way. That's why this movie isn't easy to watch.

Aaron Eckhart, Stacy Edwards and Matt Malloy do a great job. The direction is appropriate in its simplicity and the topic is an important one. Whoever has worked for a company like the one in the movie one time, will recognize the precipices of the human mind. Everybody should see this and learn.


There aren't many films that I can't find *something* good about to mention, but this is one. Waste of an evening. Story that is sometimes weird, sometimes just bad. I can't be sure what point the director/author was trying to make with this one. Locations, sets, dialog, plot, music, all lackluster. At least it wasn't two hours long!


A total generational look at corporate American thirty-something men in the worst sense. Cruelty is the underlining theme, yet you are laughing through most of the movie at what, unfortunately, can and does happen in the business world. Back stabbing, sexism, betrayal and lies somehow make this a very entertaining movie. (are we sick?!) Most everyone survives at the end of a six week roller coaster ride in treachery.


This film embodies all the reasons to watch independent films. In the Company of Men is a sharp-as-a-razor black comedy that takes a disturbing look at the darker regions of both the male psyche and the corporate system.

This film will challenge and disturb some and totally put off others, but if films that dont just whip out tired old cliches are your style then don't look past this little gem.


The moral of this story is NOT Nice Guys Finish Last, but Know Thyself. The world is filled with human jellies who don't know who they are or what they want, who allow their actions to be directed by the wishes of others. Hence, Howard crumbles while Christine, well-grounded in her personality, apparently bounces back.

If you've come this far, you already know the essence of the plot. What most viewers miss is that Howard has a chance to live on his own terms and goofs because of a misguided need for male bonding. As a "nerd", he just has to "carry Chad's sweater". At one point he's at a fork in the road: he is given the benefit of an outsider's perspective, but he takes the wrong path. A colleague, who, not coincidentally, is black, says, on learning that Howard is dating the deaf girl, "You're a bigger man than I am." He explains that such a bold variation is dangerous in their corporate culture! Howard is taken aback at the man's admiration of his daring; this new perspective astonishes him. It doesn't sink in, though. He has a chance to be a real man, and he misses it through his own brand of deafness to the "invisible man" (who has just paid him the compliment of confiding in him and assuming that he's not a shark).

There is a subtle implication at the end that Chad may indeed get what's coming to him. His live-in girlfriend has the upper hand emotionally; he explicitly asks her for love.


I wanted Chad to get his just desserts and he didn't. I know. But I want to see the downfall of people like Chad. But in real life they do exist and they do achieve. And they are truly heartless. Many CEO's wear this same tag. Power and control and as long as I come out on top, the others be damned.

I am tempted to exercise my writing abilities and pen a script where Chad literally goes to Hell. That is what he deserves. That is where he belongs. And yes, Howard ,the weakling, right along with him.

I gave this a 9 out of 10.


Every comment here seems to be trying to analyse this film. Don't. It is a sickening film. The whole premise that a man (and you could probably have inserted a woman in a similar role) can purposely go and commit such emotional horror is soul destroying. that's what makes this such compulsive viewing. There can't be a person out there who hasn't at one point deliberately taken an action that has had similar repercussions. Emotionally cruelty is the worst cruelty of all.

The performances are straight out of reality and when coupled with the direction it made me feel that I was a fly on the wall. That's what hurt. Chad's character is not over-the-top as suggested elsewhere in here. You can pick a Chad out in plenty of places. Unfortunately the stereotyped male leads (superstud and nerdy) spoil the film a bit and whilst a deaf girl isn't exactly a character you can despise, her deafness becomes increasingly irrelevant as the film goes on (as seen by the emotional bonds that develop between the nerd and Christine).

Ultimately it doesn't say anything about the male psyche or relationships, but it does show an extreme version of the kind of emotional cruelty of which we are all capable.


In the Company of Men is not a criticism of all things male. Far from it! It is a social commentary that takes a good hard look on what we in society like to call "relationships." It's about the way women really do set themselves up for disappointment when they always fall for the "bad boy." It's about the way men aren't really men unless they are hard-hearted, unemotional, and unreal. Let me explain.

In the end, it's Chad who starts and ends the entire ordeal- it is he who drives the final stake into Christine's heart. And yet it is also Chad who makes his way upwards through the corporate ladder, Chad who charms his way into Christine's life, Chad who goes home to loving wife. Why? Because he is what society looks for in a man. And the only one to ever figure it out is Howard. The only one who really feels anything for Christine is Howard. The only one who ends up alone and broken (throwing up in a stairwell) is Howard. At the end of the movie, he screams at the top of his lungs, trying to get Christine's attention- but he is not heard. Neither are we.

The truth is, any man who has the independence not to become a cold, unfeeling b*****d gets the short end of the stick from society. And in modern society, it takes a man of great will not follow Chad's example and come out on top. The moral of this story is simple: nice guys finish last.

The entire movie is thus built upon a central metaphor. In essence, the modern corporation is a manifestation of LaBute's "Company of Men," it is an entity that calls for fundamental male-ness. The corporation is a modern day battlefield, and there's no room for politeness.


This is a startling, disturbing and generally unpleasant tale of the darker side of the psyche. The cruelty and manipulation exhibited degraded both the giver and the receivers. Nevertheless, it was thoroughly convincing as a depiction of the few central characters and absorbing in its unremitting sadism. Although previous movies have begun with a similar premise, they have always ended with some form of justice or redemption. Not this movie, which somehow manages to become even more loathsome. The story is intriguing, the acting is convincing, the dialogue is intelligent, and the direction basic but apt. In all, although this was a thoroughly nasty movie, it was still quality. My vote 7/10


Wow, what a great work of cinema. "In the Company of Men" will definitely go on my list of the best films of the 90's. This film tells us so much about power differences and manipulation in corporate America. On the surface, many people see the film as a misogynist tale of two men who want to emotionally abuse a vulnerable woman for the pure enjoyment of it. But the film digs much deeper than that. It is more about manipulation in general. Chad is symbolic of this manipulation. His real motives seem to be to manipulate people just because he can. I mean he gets Howard, a weaker man to go along with his ruthless scheme even though it is quite obvious that he really doesn't want to. Overall the film illustrates the lengths that some people will go and use their power to get ahead by feeding on the vulnerability of the weak.


This terrific movie is one that I'll be thinking about for quite some time. It's great in every way, especially the acting of Aaron Eckhart, who deserved some serious hardware and even more recognition for the performance that he gave. While this is certainly not a film for everyone, it is yet again refreshing to see the chances that independent filmmakers will take. This is the kind of film that would never be made in Hollywood, for they would be too afraid that people would be offended. I actually liked the fact that I was laughing at jokes that were completely tasteless and politically incorrect in the extreme. We need more films like this.


This was an excellent black comedy on the harshness of the American corporation and some of the villains that work for it. I appreciate any film where it is difficult to predict what will happen next, and "In The Company Of Men" was definitely one of those films. A great acting job by Aaron Eckhart as the man you love to hate. This one is not for the weak-hearted or sensitive types. 10/10


I've read all the comments prior to posting this, so now what I am saying will sound a lot more different than everyone else. I think that In the Company of Men (ICM) is a great movie. Everyone gives their reasons, but I think people did not pinpoint it. I will try to do just so.

First, it is a movie about men. Not that the movie would have been any different if the leads (Howard and Chad) were played by female. The point is that the movie would have been much more complex and probably too difficult to comprehend if not for flat females. Basically, there are only three females in the movie and even though Christine (deaf girl) occupies quite a lot of screen time, she is just a filler.

Second, the movie is anti-political correctness in the most intelligent way. Nobody gets killed, there are no unnecessary profanities but it packs a punch to PC and to the whole Hollywood machine of producing happy movies. The movie says things that we all already know: Sometimes the worst people get everything. With the sense of escapism surrounding most American movies, this is a refreshing movie that actually plays by the rules of Hollywood. It makes people feel bad because they got used to feeling good. This duality of screen and real life became so much the part of our lives that we are shocked when we are shown the life as it is.

Third, the camera work, editing, music, dialogue, etc. are not that great. You do not see great effects, there is no "edge" in editing, the movie has a sleazy-tv-soap-opera feel to it. Nothing more. And this is the whole point of the movie. The surrounding, the people, anonymous bars... we unconsciously associate with all that. There is nothing to prevent us from doing so. "Gummo", "Kids", "Tetsuo"... even "Blade", they are all non-PC, but their plots leave an element of escapism, the situation seem unreal or at least too far away to worry.

But ICM scraps all the escapism in order for you, the viewer, to finally engage into the movie that actually makes you feel bad.

This, I think is the greatest achievement of ICM.


This movie is one of the most amazing I ever see. I didn't expect so much from it and I was really surprised by that movie, which is totally different from what we usually in american cinema. Here we are with the story of these men, Chad and Howard who have to spend 6 weeks far from their home sent there by their "firm". They decide to have a revenge on women and will both seduce one, they will expect her to fall in love with one of them and they will give her up. We spend our time asking why they really decide to do that, do they really want to hurt someone like that for such reasons ? we try to find a concrete reason to their evilness, but we can't, we want to leave our seat because that's too disturbing but the questions we're asking ourselves can't let us leave it. The conclusion is very hard, but we've got there a reflection about power in general, not only about men and women,about those who have power (like Chad and Howard) and those who don't have the sanme power (Christine and Kif). we're also amazed to see this kind of men, the white collars, be shown that way while they usually are shown as example for the american dream of the individualism and economical liberalism. I told many people to watch it, they all liked it, I even watched it with a feminist, who loved it, but it provides you a big big headache. That's a movie which dares to show things. Neil LaBute is a director to follow.


There are already too many comments on this one, but ... As usual, lots of people seeing this movie were looking for characters to "relate to," and feeling jaded because not only is there a dearth of such characters, but the film also forces the viewer to re-evaluate his or her personal belief systems. If the movie was not as successful as it is (in terms of stirring up deep-seated emotions), then there wouldn't be so many poor ratings on this BBS.

The aspect of this movie I think gets overlooked is the character of Howard. Of course he is not the manipulative misogynist that Chad is, but in this manner his character reveals a more subtler objectification of women. He goes along with the wager, and although not as active a character as Chad, is every bit the misogynist Chad is. He just doesn't have the mettle to act on it, to utilize it like Chad. The fact that he falls in love with Christine in no way makes up for his earlier actions. If anything, his character is more repellant because his personality is not the overblown, cartoonish behavior of Chad. Howard represents the average man, the type who likes to think all people are equal, but in his heart things are always stacked in his favor.


When this film was made, people were still in love with cars, freeways and bringing progress to the west. So it was quite an achievement to bring to the screen a divided hero, who from one side admired the Indian way of life, and who understood that the killing of the buffaloes would bring misery to the natives, but at the same time arranged buffalo hunts for people of the east, and as a scout helped the army fight the Indians. When he goes east and see stories written about him by Ned Buntline we know that it is impossible for him (as for any human being) to live up to them, and he is bound to end up in ridicule. People nowadays are more ecology conscious and that makes this film more meaningful than in 1944. The first part of the film shows the west and the war with the Indians with excellent battle scenes and great color. Maureen O'Hara is more beautiful than in any other film I've seen her and so is Linda Darnell. The second part is when Buffalo Bill goes east, and that is when the film is at its best.


The story of Buffalo Bill (Joel McCrea) is showed basically in two parts, beginning in 1877: in the West, when he meets his future wife Louisa Frederici Cody (Maureen O'Hara), his friendship with the Indians, specially with Yellow Hand (Anthony Quinn), and his work, as an explorer of the wild West, ending when his wife returns to the East with his baby son and with a battle against the Cheyenne. The second part begins when he moves to the East, loses his son, separates from his wife, defends the Indians in the civilized society until his retirement. I liked this movie a lot: the battle scenes are fantastic, the story has action, romance, drama and is not corny. I do not know whether the facts are correctly presented or not, but as a movie, it is a great entertainment, recommended for all audiences. Maureen O'Hara's beauty is stunning. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `Buffalo Bill'


While as Biography, "Buffalo Bill" is probably as accurate as the depiction of Custer in "They Died With Their boots On", it is still excellent film making and a fine vehicle for stalwart Joel McCrea, who, despite performances in excellent non-westerns such as "Sullivan's Travels" and "Foreign Correspondent" was known primarily as a Cowboy Star.

I would also hold this film up as another example, along with John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy, of a film which depicted Native Americans as a noble race, victimized by the march of western civilization, long before the advent of films such as "Little Big Man" or "Dances With Wolves" The White Man is clearly the villain in this and the Ford films. Early on, Cody admonishes a Government representative, telling him that Yellow hand (Anthony Quinn, who also plays Crazy Horse in "They Died With Their boots On") is a Prince of his people, and should be treated as such.

Plus, if the reunion at the shooting gallery and the Wild West Show farewell scenes don't put a lump in your throat, better check your pulse.


This film is a hidden gem in western film lore and has fine work by Joel McCrea in the title role. The movie has great color and scenery, a fine cast, a great battle scene, and genuinely poignant moments. The random slaughter of buffalo is the spark that sets off a powder keg that explodes with Indians going on the warpath to drive the white invaders from their hunting grounds. The thrilling clash of red and blue at War Bonnet Gorge is perhaps the best ever filmed by any major studio on any level. The fight symbolized the struggle of two cultures and a way of life that the Indians fought desperately to preserve. The soldiers and Indians are a blur in a savage mixture of military conflict that forever broke the resistance of the Plains Indians to westward expansion. Maureen O'Hara is pretty as Mrs. Cody and Thomas Mitchell does well in his role as Ned Buntline.


This is one of the most underrated films of all time. It excels in every area - cinematography, acting, writing, direction, editing and production values. Yet, New York Times Critic Bosley Crowthers dismissed it as just a "colorful film" when it opened in 1944.

Yet, scene after scene is brilliant, the comedy works, the romance works, the action works, and the political/philosophical points about the American West work. For example take the comic second scene of the film where Bill Cody has to wait for a letter, while the postman delivers the mail according to rank. "There are many ranker than you," he says. Delicious. There is hardly any romantic scene in a movie that matches Maureen O'Hara being taught Native American mating customs by Joel McCrea. The Battle scenes between the soldiers and Native Americans are as good as anything until "the Magnificent Seven." Politically, it intelligently denounces racism and shows that the Native Americans fought largely in self-defense. At the same time, it shows Native Americans as both fierce in battle and dignified. It makes the point that the only Indian that the Euro-American ever cared about was the Indian inscribed on their money.

The movie has great writing and great lines. For example, after the army massacres a group of Native-Americans, Joel McCrea finds the dead body of Linda Darnell. She was his Native-American schoolteacher. He picks up the woman and carries her body in his arms. "A friend of yours?" quips a soldier. "They were all friends of mine," answers Bill.

McCrea and O'Hara are flawless in the leads, but the acting is great down the line. Anthony Quinn and Linda Darnell as native Americans have some great scenes. Before he is about to go into battle, Quinn tells himself, the grass will still grow, the sun will still shine and the river will still flow. It eloquently shows the way Native Americans see themselves as part of nature. Darnell is wonderful as she tries to fit in with Euro-American Society only to realize that they will only always see her as an "Indian." This is the perfect Western, both exciting and intelligent. It beats out "Stagecoach," "Cimmaron," "Once Upon a Time in the West," "the Magnificent Seven" and "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" as my favorite Western only because it seems so effortless and modest.


'Sophie's Choice' should be compulsory viewing for any member of the voting panel who decide Academy Award winners. Quite simply, Meryl Streep's performance is THE benchmark for that 'Best Actress' category. I've seen a LOT of films, but not one performance has ever (and will ever) match her's. The manner in which she embodies Sophie goes beyond explanation. It is too accomplished and moving for words. It is almost offensive to think that Julia Roberts was awarded the same statue for Erin Brockovich'!

Aside from the breathtaking central performance from the marvellous Ms Streep, there are so many other reasons to see this film. Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol are excellent, the cinematography is beautiful (particularly the shots of Brooklyn Bridge) the score is haunting ... I could go on.

Although certain critics have berated 'Sophie's Choice' as a mere platform for Meryl Streep as an actress, I urge you to overlook this view. The film succeeds admirably in bringing to horrific life an event in history which we should all be made aware of. It is undeniable that the phenomenal performance of MS leaves you spellbound, but NOT at the expense of being horrified and affected by what you have seen. All I can say to sum up is: just see it. An intelligent and profoundly moving film which will (I promise you) live on in your memory long after the closing credits.


Without a doubt, Meryl Streep delivers the Greatest Performance By An Actress EVER - period.

The performance is totally naked, where you can almost feel her sorrow come right out of the screen. For all of the heart wrenching scenes in this movie, you never once feel as though Streep is going over-the-top. That says alot for someone who spends just about half of the time in her scenes with a tear in her eye. Everything about her performance just seems so effortless and natural. This especially shows when she is speaking German flawlessly, or English with a very convincing Polish accent.

The fact that Kevin Kline and Peter MacNicol are not completely lost in this movie says alot for their performances. Kline himself delivers a great performance of a man suffering from delusions and bi-polar syndrome. It is one of his greatest performances as well. Peter MacNicol plays the role of a character who pales in comparison to the other characters. MacNicol has the somewhat undesirable task of having to play the character who carries the least amount of baggage. He therefore might be overlooked, when viewing at the movie as a whole. However, MacNicol does a great job with the character, not trying to make more out of it than it is supposed to be. His role is very important to this movie.

But the real story here is Streep. Her performance would be a stand out against any other performance in history. I honestly believe that. Streep just digs down deep here - delivering lines that just put a chill down your spine.


Meryl Streep's performance as Sophie is simply the finest performance ever captured on film. Period. The subtlety and depth with which she reveals Sophie's wounds are simply spellbinding. She is at once radiantly beautiful, yet deeply wounded. She is charming, yet vulnerable. She is someone you want to love, yet someone whose pain keeps you at a distance.

This film takes the viewer on an intense emotional journey. Anyone, but especially anyone who is a parent, would have to be an emotional rock to not be absolutely haunted by this story. As much as I have studied and pondered the Holocaust, this film has connected me to those events more emotionally than I have ever been before.

This film, and Ms. Streep's performance, are a gift to humanity.


Wow! I am still in absolute shock from this film. Meryl Streep delivers a magnificent performance, with a flawless Polish accent. Kevin Kline and Peter Macnichol are terrific and together the three of them make a highly enjoyable film. The 'choice' Sophie has to make is shattering, a beautifully acted and unforgettable scene. Meryl Streep won the best actress Oscar for her portrayal of the nazi camp survivor, this was richly deserved. The film was incredible with a great score and many moving emotional scenes. The emotions of the characthers, especially Sophie, are incredibly beliveable and bought to life. All 3 of the main performances are haunting and memorable. A must see.

Highly reccomended. 10/10


We, who we never were forced to witness such inhumanity and terror as those who survived the Holocaust, can probably never quite capture what it meant and indescribable it must have been. Director Alan J. Pakula tried with this film to bring us the despair closer, as we witness the struggle of a woman to survive and how she cannot live with her decisions.

Sophies story is told by Stingo (a very young Peter MacNicol), a writer, who moves to New York and befriends quickly his new neighbors Nathan (Kevin Kline) and Sophie (Meryl Streep). Sophie survived Ausschwitz, drinks to much and is completely dedicated to Nathan, who now and then gets terrible moods. They all become good friends, but while Nathan seems to go deeper and deeper into madness Sophie tells Stingo from time to time parts of her story, how she survived and what a terrible choice she had to make.

I wont reveal what the choice is, but for me it was one of most chilling moments I've ever seen on film. It's revealed very late in the movie, at a time where we already root for Sophie, despite being a rather naive and weak character, but we care so much for her it's like it happened to ourselves.

Though MacNicol and Kline are both flawless in their respective parts, the movie is dominated by Meryl Streep, who demands attention in every scene she's in (and is exquisitely photographed by cinematographer Nestor Almendros). She's funny (the movie, despite the bleak and depressing story, is quite joyous), exhilarating, beautiful, but at the same time she always seems to be sad, like a cloud it's hanging over her head.

The end of the movie, however sad it is, is not at all depressing, because somehow we felt throughout the whole movie, that Sophie was doomed from the start, that there was no other solution than this and that it's probably more peaceful for her than to go on and on.


After enjoying Meryl Streep and Kevin Kline in the recent ensemble comedy "A Prairie Home Companion," it was great to see their dramatic performances in "Sophie's Choice," the movie that made them famous. Here, they play Sophie and Nathan, a volatile young couple living in a Brooklyn boardinghouse in the summer of 1947. Their story, and eventually the story of the Polish Sophie's time in a concentration camp during World War II, is presented through the eyes of Stingo (Peter MacNichol), their young Southern neighbor.

Though other characters appear, especially during the flashbacks, "Sophie's Choice" is largely a three-person drama that relies on subtle interactions. Meryl Streep can always be counted on to give a nuanced performance, but here, especially, she raises the bar. Speaking three languages (including a very realistic portrayal of how foreigners can hesitate and hunt for words when speaking English), going from a haggard Auschwitz inmate to a pretty "blooming rose," consumed by guilt even during the madcap or romantic moments she shares with Nathan, she gives a brilliant performance of a very complex character. Her big scenes with Nazi officers are of course powerful, but I was equally struck by smaller moments: the heartbreaking little flashes of emotion that reveal Sophie's postwar wounds, or the extraordinary conversation she has with a Nazi's daughter.

Kline throws himself into the role of the "fatally glamorous" Nathan and also displays impressive range: he goes from charming to menacing. MacNichol is not up to these (admittedly high) standards. He can play the wide-eyed innocent, but he always seems somewhat thick-headed and lacking in passion. The movie would be more effective if Stingo seemed more truly changed by his experiences with Sophie and Nathan.

Despite Stingo's weakness as a character, I liked the unusual structure that reveals Sophie's story gradually, in flashbacks that draw closer and closer to the ultimate horror. The movie is nicely shot and some of the Brooklyn scenes look as though they actually could have come from a 1940s movie. But no director from the 1940s would have confronted the brutalities of the Holocaust so directly, and few actresses from any era could have given a performance like Streep's.


This film mixes action with respectful exploration of the main characters, on both sides of the conflict. Excellent acting all round. The plot is developed carefully and sets the stage well for the ending. The local South American scenes offer colourful counterpoints to the preceding at sea sequences.

This film in British genre with the makers' principal focii being the storyline and the acting. Fans of the U.S.-style war movies may find the film too understated at times. They will also find the use of models for some of the battle scenes less than convincing when compared to the larger-than-life realism of computer-generated imagery.


This film is about the final days of the German pocket battleship (like a heavy cruiser), GRAF SPEE. This ship did a lot of damage to British shipping during the early days of the war until she was ultimately hunted down by a small armada of smaller and very vulnerable naval vessels.

I enjoyed this film very much because I am a history teacher and love realistic war films. Unfortunately, while this film was big on realism, it also will probably seem a tad dull to the average person because it did stress realism and not huge name actors and unnecessary action. While there were many fine British actors in important roles (Anthony Quayle, Bernard Lee and Peter Finch, among others), to the average American audience they probably will seem more like sea men versus actors. This and the script really worked together to produce a film that seemed almost like a documentary in how it tried very hard to get the details right--and as a WWII buff, this impressed me very much.

There are a few omissions or mistakes in the film, but they aren't all that important. First, of course the Spee had been sunk, so an American ship filled in--and this is certainly forgivable. Second, oddly, in the original version, the movie is called "The Battle of the River Plate" but there was no River Plate. The word was "Plata"--meaning Silver River when correctly translated into English. Finally, and I can understand why they didn't mention this, shortly after the German Captain scuttled his ship he committed suicide. However, I did appreciate how the film portrayed him as an ultimately decent and competent man--a nice requiem for a fallen enemy who was just doing his duty.

Overall, not a film for the casual viewer but certainly one for history and naval buffs out there. Great stuff.


The Battle of the River Plate is an almost documentary like account of the battle of the German pocket battleship Graf Spee with three allied cruisers and what happened to her subsequently. Heading the small mini fleet was Captain Anthony Quayle and the German captain of the Graf Spee was played by Peter Finch.

December of 1939 was the period known as the 'phony war'. Poland had been overrun by the Nazis and the British and French forces were on the continent safely behind the Maginot line or so they thought at the time. What action there was at this time was on the sea with various naval engagements here and there.

The Graf Spee was doing one number on British commerce in the South Atlantic. It sank nine British merchant vessels, but her captain was no Nazi. He observed the rules of war strictly, picked up sailors from the sunken vessels and all reported good treatment at his hands. When he did reach Montevideo he let all the British sailors go. Sad to say this was not something repeated during World War II.

In any event two British and one New Zealand cruiser, the Ajax, the Achilles and the Exeter took on the Graf Spee and fought it to a bloody standstill. The British were lucky to have facilities at the Falkland Islands for repair. But the Graf Spee headed for Montevideo which was neutral territory at the time.

I'm not quite sure why they did not make for the friendlier shores of Buenos Aires on the River Plate. Even though Juan Peron had not taken charge in Argentina, it was still friendlier to the Germans than Uruguay was. Possibly Finch's character Lansdorff knew the history of Uruguay, a country founded as a neutral buffer state between Argentina and Brazil. In any event the Uruguayans operated correctly under the assumption that they would be at war sooner or later with the Germans as indeed were all the Latin American countries except Argentina after Pearl Harbor. The Graf Spee would have made quite the prize indeed.

As German, British, and Uruguayan diplomats tried to negotiate, Finch took action and blew up the Graf Spee in the middle of the River Plate. The Nazi propaganda machine made him a martyr which in fact he was and the British public was given something to cheer about in those beginning days of World War II.

Finch and Quayle give good performances as a pair of gallant adversaries and The Battle Of The River Plate is a fine war film from the United Kingdom in which even the enemy behaved gallantly.


If you'd like to see how talk and diplomatic maneuvering in the hands of two masterful filmmakers can turn what could have been a routine action movie into something special, try Powell and Pressburger's The Battle of the River Plate. It's late 1939 and WWII has started. The German pocket battleship Graf Spee is wreaking havoc with British shipping. Three British cruisers led by Commodore Henry Harwood (John Quayle) are in pursuit. Harwood makes an educated guess that Captain Hans Langsdorff (Peter Finch) will head toward South America for one last series of kills before returning home. He's right, and the first part of the movie is a brutal sea battle between the Graf Spee, which has 11-inch guns and hits harder, farther and faster than anything the British have, and HMS Exeter, HMNZS Achilles and HMS Ajax. They are determined to kill the Graf Spee, even though they only have 6-inch and 8- inch guns. The result? Exeter is badly damaged and must try to make it to the Falklands. Achilles and Ajax are damaged, too, but so is the Graf Spee. Langsdorff disengages and heads for neutral Montevideo, trailed by Achilles and Ajax.

And now we get to the heart of the movie. Under the laws of the sea, Langsdorff has two days to make the Graf Spee seaworthy before he must return to sea. He is low on ammunition. If he leaves the harbor with guns blazing he just might be able to take out Ajax and Achilles. After first working to insure Langsdorff is given no more time to affect repairs, the British realize that there is a chance that at least one British ship, a heavy cruiser, could arrive in time for battle. That would change the odds dramatically against Langsdorff. So now the British cleverly set false rumors that British warships are just beyond the horizon and ready for battle. They've placed Langsdorff in a crucial dilemma. If, he thinks, he leaves harbor now he faces a strengthened British force and will probably loose. If he waits for further repairs the situation won't improve. He could make a dash for Buenos Aires, not far away. Although Argentina is neutral it is friendly to Germany. But the channel is narrow and shallow. If the Graf Spee goes aground it will be a sitting target for the reinforced British. Langsdorff has no stomach for the fiery and pointless death of his sailors. All this is played out in meetings, telephone conversations and messages, all swirling around the diplomats of three countries, Britain, Germany and Uruguay. Langsdorff has little time to decide. Thanks to the British setting up false rumors, his choices all seem poor. But perhaps, in Langsdorff's mind, an immediate attempt at escape might be the least unattractive. He realizes there is a further choice, which is unexpected.

Powell and Pressburger have given us a clever film without clichés. No tearful wives, no anxious or two-timing sweethearts, no sailors used as lower-class comedy relief, no noble sacrifices to save others and no slimy Nazis. Powell uses the device of captured British captains held on the Graf Spee as a way to give us matter-of-fact interplay between the British and the Germans. One captured captain is used as a means for Langsdorff to explain to him (and Powell and Pressburger to explain to us) what the Graf Spee does, how strong it is, how it is supplied and the kind of man Langsdorff is. Powell and Pressburger use the discussions between Harwood and his fighting captains to help us understand Harwood's strategy and the battle tactics he's employing. The battle itself, filmed in the Mediterranean using ships from the navies of Britain and other countries, including a heavy cruiser from the U.S. to stand in for the Graf Spee, is dramatically and efficiently filmed. Almost no models were used except at the explosive conclusion.

But it is the "inaction" half of this action movie which is so cleverly worked out. Powell and Pressburger manage to keep us highly involved with the diplomatic to-and-froing. The fact that the people of Montevideo were fascinated with this giant German pocket battleship in their harbor is played to the hilt. The fate of the Graf Spee at the conclusion of the movie is watched from the harbor walls by thousands, all the while an American broadcaster is giving to radio listeners a description of what is occurring. It's quite an effective scene...and it actually happened.

The Battle of the River Plate, if made by anyone other than Powell and Pressburger, might well be seen as a quirky classic of its genre. But the great films of these two were in the past. They would make one more movie the next year, a film Powell called nothing more than a programmer, and they would then go, still friends, their separate ways. The partnership that gave us The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, A Matter of Life and Death, The Red Shoes, I Know Where I'm Going, A Canterbury Tale and Black Narcissus was over. We're left with these great and wonderful films. If The Battle of the River Plate is not one of them, it still is an effective, professional and clever movie, and so typical of the way these two men avoided conventionality.


The picture is a splendid British film concerning about historic deeds in WWII,the naval battle in the South Atlantic between British cruiser squadron of three ships and the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee, Dic 1939 ;the protagonists and secondaries are incarnated by a magnificent plethora English actors.The film is based on true events ,these are the following: Though the British cruisers were no match for the battleship,Admiral Sir Henry Harwood(Anthony Quayle) launched an attack to Graf Spee(with 6 cannons,280 mm).German fire seriously damaged HMS Exeter(John Cregson,captain Bell)with cannons 203mm,put half of HMS Ajax(captain Woodhouse, Ian Hunter)'s guns out of action,and then damaged Achilles(cannons 152 mm),but the cruisers did sufficient damage to the German ship to make its captain break off and run for shelter in Montevideo,Uruguay.The British followed,and waited in international waters outside the neutral port.The Uruguay government ordered the Germans to leave after 72 hours.The British cruisers named Royal and Renown were near from Montevideo and Langsdorff(Peter Finch) didn't wait possibilities to vanquish.Hitler,reluctant to risk the Graf Spee being sunk by heavier British warship which were sailing for the River Plate ,ordered the captain to scuttle the vessel.He did so 17 Dec 1939 and three days later shot himself.The film contains a colorful and glimmer cinematography by Christopher Challis.The movie is well produced(with the Archers production)and directed by Emeric Pressburger and Michael Powell.The motion picture will like to warlike genre fans and classic British cinema.


The documentary style understatement used in this picture makes a welcome change from the usual encountered in other films of this type. There is some fabulous photography and very lightly and subtly sketched character portrayals. Altogether fascinating and unconventional I should think it would repay many repeated viewings. The emotion controlled as it is comes through all the more effectively.The Christmas scenes amongst the prisoners were very effective and the battle scenes conveyed confusion and small acts of heroism shining through. Who cares if they used an American ship for Graf Spee - some people are so pompous - its a superb picture.


Just a hint for casual viewers, ignore Mr. Crook's synopsis of the battle, it could not be more incorrect. Bismarck was a full battleship and not commissioned until 1941. Gneisenau and Scharnhost were battle cruisers and much larger than the only actual pocket battleship he mentions, the Graf Spee (there were 2 other pocket battleships in the German fleet).

The film itself is very much in the tradition of British war films, little Hollywood glitz but much more accurate than Hollywood's history films. Very much in the vein of Sink The Bismarck and well worth watching. Graf Spee was the most effective of the German surface raiders but it once again proved that the submarine was a much more cost effective way to destroy shipping.


Filmed in colour, which was very unusual for a British war movie of that era, this was a basically decent take on WW2 naval conflict.

It's nice to sea genuine warships of the period in their full spectacular and menacing beauty, instead of the usual tacky and implausible models. Just check-out the 'sea-battle' of 'In Harm's Way' to sea how badly it could have been done.

Lots of fine British character actors pop up and do their stuff. Anthony Quayle, John Gregson, Patrick Macnee and there are many more. There are also plenty of nice little details that often get overlooked, such as the gun-muzzles that become smoke-blackened after use. The actual battle sequences tend to look a little hokey nowadays, with the splashes of nearby shell-falls resembling a bucket of pelted water. Still; the destruction and confusion arising from direct hits are believable enough.

Some commentators smirk at the stiff upper-lipped-ness of the characters portrayed, but these attitudes are, in fact, very authentic. It was terribly bad form to lapse into any kind of emotional display in those times of repressed Englishness, never mind the histrionics often (wrongly) depicted of Americans. People had a far greater sense of national obligation in those days, and lamenting one's personal losses implied a lack of proportion; everyone was suffering one way and another. A recently-interviewed former nurse who served in a war-casualty hospital remarked how, despite the most appalling injuries she had ever seen, no man ever swore or cried out in pain. The only exclamation of distress she ever heard was a whispered 'oh-dear'. There's a scene in the much more gritty 'Cruel Sea' in which a crew member, whilst writing a letter to his wife, is informed of her death in the blitz. He responds simply by saying 'I think I'll just go on deck for a while'. Everyone learnt to have a much greater sense of self-discipline and forbearance. They kept a good face and grieved in private. Unlike the wimps of today. Just look at the antics of a modern premier-league footballer who gets tripped-up.

Another criticism has been levied about its predominantly British take on events. But what would one expect in 1956? The bleeding-heart liberal apologists hadn't taken over the media by then. In fact, Finch's Langsdorff and the Graff Spee crew in general offer a pretty sympathetic presentation of those who fought at sea for the most despicable regime of modern time. Let's not forget that this powerful warship was employed in sinking defenceless merchant vessels. When it came up against determined though still inferior-gunned adversaries, Langsdorff's response was to cut and run. Bearing in mind that the Battle is depicted from a British perspective and that they knew almost nothing of the mindset of their enemies, I'd say it is sufficiently evenly balanced for the story and the drama.

I also like the way we patrol with the fleet as the dawn breaks on a clear morning. We see the sky brightening and the sun slowly rise as the aboard-ship dramas unfold.

If I have a grumble about the movie it concerns the post-Montevideo section. Far too much of the drama is given over to the rogue reporter. His relentless hyperbole jars with the steadfast British understatement that dominated the first half of the action. But I suppose as American money funded it and an American warship had been borrowed to play the Graff Spee, they must be allowed in somewhere.

Still, there's much to like and admire in this golden oldie, from top-drawer actors, excellent script, beautiful photography, and genuine warships of the time, as well as a largely authentic slice of history. Not many movies can boast all of these things. Just check-out U571.

Recommended.


I saw this film as a little boy when it came out in the 50's and thought it was great. I still think it is a good film by war film standards, but certainly not as strong as something like "The Cruel Sea" which is a more harder hitting adult film.

The film sticks pretty much to the actual historical events and doesn't wander off the straight and narrow, which many war films sometimes do! The cast is like a who's who of all the well known British actors of the time, and they are all very competent and all work hard to keep their upper lips very stiff and correct.

It is good to see that the Germans are dealt with sympathetically and not portrayed as 'villains', as sometimes happens if the film had been made purely in Hollywood.

It is also good to see that real ships are used in the general shots, instead of models in a bath tub, and some of the camera shots of the battle are excellent.

One very minor gripe is that in some of the shots of the "Graf Spee" the US Navy extras playing the 'German' sailors are still wearing US Navy uniforms! Oh dear! Ah well, it does not detract from what is overall a good film.


This meticulous film re-enacts the first major sea battle of World War II, the dramatic engagement between the German pocket battleship "Graf Spee" and three smaller British cruisers off the coast of South America, and it's equally dramatic aftermath. When the battle-damaged Graf Spee steamed into the neutral Uruguayan port of Montevideo it became front page news all over the world, and everybody wondered how the story would end. Would the Graf Spee allow herself to be interned in Uraguay, would she attempt to escape out to sea, or would she fight the British again? And if she did choose to fight, just how powerful a force did the British have left to face her?

At the time the film was produced there were no longer any warships resembling the Graf Spee, so the producers made do with the U.S. Navy's heavy cruiser "USS Salem". The real Graf Spee was actually a great deal more powerful than the USS Salem. The Graf Spee could out-run any warship she didn't out-gun, and she out-gunned any warship she couldn't out-run. For those reasons the Graf Spee was more than a match for the three British warships that faced her. It was as though three terriers were taking on an angry bear.

One noteworthy aspect of this film is that the producers listed the ships in the credits as though they were members of the cast. It was entirely appropriate that they should have done so, since this is essentially a story of ships and the seamen who manned them. It is also noteworthy that two of the ships in the cast, HMS Cumberland and HMIS Delhi (formerly HMNZS Achilles) were actually present during the original events.

As for the original HMS Exeter, it was a tribute to the professionalism of her crew that she actually survived the tremendous battering depicted in the film (she was hit by seven of Graf Spee's 11-inch shells). Unfortunately she was sunk by the Japanese in 1942, and the survivors of her gallant crew spent the remainder of the war living under conditions similar to those depicted in "The Bridge Over the River Kwai".


While this film is well acted and historically fairly accurate, it contains one glaring oversight. While introducing Capt. Langsdorf as an efficient and likable officer, we know nothing of his actions during the battle. The film portrays all the actions aboard the three British cruisers but never shows what was occurring on the bridge of the Graf Spee. We know Langsdorf was under orders to avoid engaging enemy warships. What was his reaction when he sighted the three British cruisers? What caused his decision to engage them? What orders did he give during the battle? We know what the British captains did but nothing about what Langsdorf did? We know the extent of the British damage but nothing of the extent of the Graf Spee damage. From the time the British cruisers sight the Graf Spee, we follow the actions on the bridge of Ajax, Achilles and Exeter but nothing of what is going on aboard the Graf Spee other than the reactions of the British prisoners aboard? How effective would a film of the battle of Waterloo have been if it only showed Wellington's actions and ignored Napoleons? A film that far better addresses this problem was "The Enemy Below" starring Robert Mitchum as the American destroyer captain and Curt Jurgens as the German U-boat commander. Throughout the engagement, we know what each is doing and both adversaries are presented in a positive light. It should be added that the heavily damaged Exeter was a star crossed ship, later sunk by the Japanese in the Java Sea.


In the first weeks of the Second World War, German crack pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee, captained by Hans Langsdorff, inflicts heavy damage on British merchant shipping. Discovering the Graf Spee's position, Commodore Harwood consults with Captains Bell of the Exeter, Woodhouse of Ajax and Parry of the New Zealand ship Achilles, gambling that the Germans will head for the River Plate before returning home.

A fierce battle rages throughout the following day, with Exeter suffering heavy damage. The Graf Spee escapes under cover of nightfall to neutral Montevideo harbour where, after frantic diplomatic negotiations, foreign minister Doctor Guani, acting under the Hague Convention, allows Langsdorff 72 hours to carry out such repairs a will make the vessel seaworthy without enhancing its fighting ability.

British Naval Intelligence meanwhile spread rumours of an advancing fleet awaiting the German ship as soon as it leaves port, although only the still damaged Ajax and Achilles are within striking distance. As the deadline approaches and the Graf Spee moves out of the harbour, the entire crew transfer to a German freighter as a series explosions engulf their ship in flames. The British bluff has worked - Langsdorff has scuttled his vessel, believing escape impossible.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please write to me at: iamaseal2@yahoo.com


"The Battle of the River Plate" (1956) is Powell and Pressburger's most underrated movie. Set in 1939, its about the British navy trying to capture "The Graf Spee" pursued by the "HMS Ajax", "HMS Exeter" and "HMS Achilles".Most people say it is not up to the standard as, say, "A Matter of Life and Death", but I disagree. As it is not one of the more wider known parts of World War Two, it makes the first half tense and exciting. But its the second half, when "The Graf Spee" hides in a neutral port where it kicks into high gear. The whole place reeks of atmosphere, unequalled in any over Powell and Pressburger film. As I have said before, a very underrated movie, that is well worth watching.


A wonderful 1950s British war film, and in colour too! Superficial people have criticised the studio based battle sequences (a budgetary necessity) yet those of us with some knowledge of naval warfare are qualified to heap praise on the production. The attention to detail is immense, and contrasts sharply with the later, better known "Sink The Bismark". Battle of The River Plate actually features the Director Control Tower, it vividly illustrates the pre-radar horizon spotting. Note the blackened guns after the battle. Hear the bell ring before each salvo. Note in the credits the consultation with many of those involved.

Unfortunately the choice of the American ship as Graf Spee is less than ideal - but we have to allow some margin for error in pre-CGI days.

The conference of cruiser captains is pure fiction, a scene added to the film, but here again Powell and Pressburger show the correct naval procedure for the boats moving between the ships. Hilariously you can find accounts of the conference which never happened in history books written since this film was made!

Other than this, the story is largely accurate. Unlike Lawrence Of Arabia, for example, the principle characters are real, as are the minor characters. Note the young Donald Moffat as Swanston, the lookout chief.

Quayle is excellent as Harwood, and brings a wonderful gravitas to the role.

The film would have benefited from a German perspective during the battle rather than just the experiences of the prisoners on Graf Spee, and of course did ignore Langsdorf's suicide a few days after the scuttling.


I believe this is the best war drama around concerning WWII naval action--and was the first major sea battle of WWII. The story is true as well as the fact that news of the battle was radio broadcast to some of the world at the time of action. Were any others possible as such--not likely--as the battles were usually far from land and news was slow in release. I see only a few faults other than those listed---officers and sailors out on deck watching 11 inch shells going over their heads--and they have no battle gear on? Out on open deck in battle? The Graf Spee (played by a US ship) has a radar dish spinning around on the upperworks. Radar did not exist in 1939 and if it had, the Graf Spee's ability to move about undetected would have been compromised to some extent (not in 1939). This great movie is a history lesson and must be seen. Well acted and produced thanks to the Brits!


I always laugh out loud at the comments that portray this film as good. It is awful and always has been. True, there are some good performances from Quayle and Finch but the loose plot, bath tub ships and mostly one sided British view makes it one to forget. The dire bath tub battle sequences have come straight from the comics. Best to read a good book on the subject and stay away from such overpowering rot! Only when the film moves to land sequences does it have any credibility and there are still plenty of cardboard backdrops to help the film become even more foolish. The dialog reeks of upper class English nonsense also. Utterly sicking all round.


Search for any kind of movie in the video stores and you'll discover that somebody had to accomplish something in the motion picture industry. THE PLUMBER is the perfect example, coming from a man who may win special honors for THE TRUMAN SHOW. Calling it a horror movie is an exaggeration on its own, but the plot is nerve-tingling as a plumber disrupts an Aussie woman's life through his wild behavior. It all adds to the panic of suspense. To make a political statement about this film, it shows that social and moral values decay in this global community we live and breathe by. Peter Weir must be given a big hand on his films, and this one needs not to be left behind in the abyss of forgotten movies.


Little known Australian gem that takes the old 'girl stalked by psycho' theme and gives it a fun twist with some astute social commentary. A highly intellectual, educated women suddenly finds herself being manipulated by a slovenly, low class plumber. She is an expert at primitive cultures, yet is unable to deal with her own 'civilized' culture. As he tears away at her bathroom, he also tears away at the line that seperates the classes. Playfully pokes at everything from how much control one really has on their enviroment, to how vulnerable we ALL are and how no one is really that far removed or 'above' anyone else. Also aptly displays how our social mores, customs, and status are only their as long as everyone respects them. Yet the best thing about this sleeper is how everyone, including her friends and husband, are so caught up in their own little worlds that they cannot fully fathom the extent of her fear. Bringing to light the old adage of us all having our own 'private hell'. Mono sound and a bit of a 'cop out' ending are the only detractions.


In Adelaide, the wife of Dr. Brian Cowper (Robert Coleby), Jill Cowper (Judy Morris), is developing her thesis at home to finish her Master in Anthropology. When the plumber Max (Ivor Kants) unexpectedly arrives for a routine check and maintenance of the piping in the bathroom, Jill stays alone at home with the talkative weird stranger. Along the days, he tells that he spent some time in prison, making Jill frightened with his presence. Her friend Meg (Candy Raymond), her husband Brian and the super's wife finds Max a simple, but nice man, but Jill does not agree. When there is a problem in her bathroom and Max needs to stay with her for a longer period, the tension between them increases and Jill finds a way to get rid off the plumber.

This low budget and theatrical film is a claustrophobic and scary study of human nature, based on the relationship of two different characters of different social classes spending a period together. It is also impressive how far a stressed person with culture and education may go and how amoral can be her behavior staying alone with another disturbed and lonely person that she can not understand. The direction and performances are outstanding in this suspenseful and efficient thriller. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Encanador" ("The Plumber")


A married graduate student takes some time off to work on her thesis and play housewife to her doctor husband while living in a University apartment complex. One day, a plumber shows up unannounced claiming he needs to do routine maintenance but ends up making a terrible mess of her bathroom. Soon, she finds the plumber is always around, a bit snoopy, and may have ulterior motives. The Plumber is pretty good, especially considering it was apparently a TV movie, but it is a bit on the dull side. As seems to be a theme with Mr. Weir, this film explores the concept of The Other within the framework of a horror-thriller. I'd argue this is even more successful to me than Wave or Paris were, perhaps because it's main focus was on two individuals. It explores both sides and the ambiguity serves the narrative instead of causing confusion.


Hi, My name is Mark Zara I was one of the members of a South Australia band called Static. In the 70,s we were gathering a following in Adelaide playing pubs ,clubs and large venue,s and were approached to write a few songs for the film.After putting the songs together in a short time,we went into a recording studio and laid down 3 tracks Unfortunately the songs can only be heard on the plumbers radio while he,s working, and even then it,s you can barely hear it. At lest we got a credit at the end of the film I,d didn't see the film until the mid 1980,s a didn't think it was much of a horror movie, I found it laughable in parts hope I gave some help Mark


After seeing The Truman Show,i wanted to see the other films by weir.I would say this is a good one to start with. The Plot:

The wife of a doctor (who is trying to impress his bosses,so he can get promoted).Is trying to finish her written course,while hes at work.But one day a strange man,who says that hes a Plumber,tells her hes been called out to repair some pipes in there flat.As time goes on it turns into a battle to see,how much she can take of this "Plumber". View On The Film:

Peter "The Master And Commander:The Far Side Of The World" Weir, keeps the film going at a really good pace and makes sure to keep it moving fast.Unlike a film thats very "similar" to this,The Cable Guy,this film does not go as dark as that film,which helps to give it a more realistic feel.Though Weir gives it some good comedy,(like,when the Plumber does a spoof of Dylans,It Ain't Me Babe,by doing a song called-Its Me Babe!).The cast that has no one that well known in it,do a really good job to make you feel,that this is really happening. Final View On The Film:

If you want to see a very enjoyably gripping film,then see this..


Peter Weir shows how a good film can be made from a solid script and very little money.

A student of anthropology attempts to understand aboriginal tribes, but is completely baffled by the cultural chasm that separates her post-graduate sensibilities from the working-class plumber who is sent to work on her apartment. Is he malicious or misunderstood? The script is delightfully ambiguous.

A little low-budget gem.


When I first heard of this film sometime around 1986 I was employed as a plumber, so I of course I had to see it. I found it in the public library and ended up watching it with my eleven year old sister in law. Twenty years later I have long since stopped making my living as a plumber and my eleven year old sister in law hasn't been my sister-in-law for a decade. But I have a feeling that she still remembers this film because we both had a great time watching it, and we spoke of it for years afterwards.

The Plumber is not a big movie. It is a character study filmed in a very small setting. Although I usually see it categorized as either a thriller or as a horror movie, it is neither of those. It is a study of an obviously disturbed plumber who is set off for some reason by Jill Cowper, the tenant in the apartment where he is called to look at the plumbing. I say that he was "set off," because if he did in every apartment what he does in Jill's then he would have been locked up a long time ago. He could not have made a habit of behaving in the manner in which he behaves in the film. Although he really did not harm anyone, he made himself threatening and tore the bathroom apart for no reason - neither of which is conducive to being a satisfactory plumber.

I have to say that when I worked as a plumber I was quite competent and I did not wreck people's houses. I did clean work, as much as plumbing can be clean anyway, and I took pride in it. However, I have always had an odd sense of humor, and sometimes I would mess around a bit with the heads of my clients. Nothing mean or scary like our buddy Max in this movie, but funny nonetheless. I can recall one time when I was called out to an apartment that had water dripping into it from the unit above. When I arrived there was a college age girl there, but the water was not presently dripping and the tenants in the apartment above were not home, so I could not go upstairs and investigate. There was not much that I could do about it at the moment. So I started to ask the girl about the problem and she told me that water was sometimes dripping from the light fixture on the ceiling. I looked at her very seriously and asked "was it wet?" She asked me what I meant, and I said "this water - was it wet?" She looked confused and unsure of how to answer. I told her that I needed to know if the water was wet, since I could not go upstairs and see for myself. She continued to look confused and sort of stammered out something like "yeah I guess so" and looked quite baffled, as if she was wondering if there was something more to water than meets the eye that a plumber might need to know about, and what it could be and why she didn't know about it. She had that look about her like she suddenly found herself in an alternate universe, where the simplest things that she took for granted were all of the sudden strange and alien, and nothing made sense. I left soon after and never did tell her that I was messing around - I didn't make any money if I went to a call and couldn't do any work so I suppose that was my payment. I did a lot of things like that, certainly never harming anyone or even being mean but I did leave a lot of confused customers in my wake.

Anyway, as a plumber myself, The Plumber was doubly hilarious. Everything about what he did as a plumber was completely absurd. He was there for a very minor problem, yet soon he was carrying in all sorts of supplies that had nothing at all to do with the problem at hand. Cut to later shots of Max the plumber in the bathroom and we see sinks coming off of walls and, most absurdly of all, a full set of scaffolding covering the entire bathroom! That last one is so completely over the top that any plumber could not help but be struck by the sheer ridiculousness of it all. Then there was Max's piece de resistance. Cut the the bathroom again, and there is Max, sitting on the toilet with a guitar and one of those harmonicas in a brace that fits around the neck ala Bob Dylan, composing a song that must have been titled "I'm Me, Babe" but we don't know for sure. The whole thing just took the cake right over the top and heaved it over the fence. My sister in law and I sang that song for months afterwards. Think about it - not only is he in there with a guitar and singing when he is supposed to be fixing the plumbing, but he has a neck mounted harmonica too! It's a classic moment, and I don't use the word classic very often.

Overall, you don't have to be a plumber to enjoy this movie, but if you are, or even involved in a trade that brings you into people's homes, then the absurdity of the situations in this film will probably hit home a bit harder. And yes, as others have noted, the ending is bit weak; but there are enough "moments" in The Plumber to overcome it. You'll be singing "I'm Me, Baaaaaaabe" long after you've forgotten the ending.


I didn't know what to make of this film. I like small films set in just one small setting. This one takes place in a kitschy seventies Aussie flat and features a homemaker working on her thesis who is terrorized by the building's plumber.

You read that right, the heroine is terrorized by The Plumber From Hell! You had The Affair From Hell in Fatal Attraction, The Cop From Hell in Unlawful Entry, and years before those two you had the dude who unstops your toilet from Hades terrorizing ya.

I guess this is supposed to be a black suspense comedy. It is pretty racy for a movie first shown on TV and not in theaters. But those libertine folks from Oz are a randy bunch, I guess. The film has some tense, creepy moments, a couple laughs, and a pretty good Dylanesque folk song performed by the psycho plumber. I'm Me Babe! That's the name of the song. Gotta admit I liked it. A great one man Dylan knock off combining voice, acoustic guitar and harmonica. Cool stuff. Dylan shoulda covered I'm Me Babe, I kid you not. Somebody get Bob a copy of this flick pronto! In the sixties it coulda been a potential hit single.

But there are HUGE gaps in logic. There comes a point where you ask yourself why the heroine doesn't just run the hell outta the apartment or hey, how about this? CALL THE POLICE! The main character is supposed to be an idiot I guess since it defies all logic that a woman in this situation would not call the Pigs when things start to get hairy.

You can see director Peter Weir was still learning his craft with this film.

He makes some rather amateurish mistakes, but it's good to see even the old pros took time to master their craft. Hell, look how rough Stanley Kubrick's first two features were. Plus I wanted to see a cameo by Terry Camilleri, star of Weir's The Cars That Ate Paris.

The ending where the heroine double crosses the plumber and has him sent to jail is very tepid and leaves you scratching your head and saying, huh? That's it?! That's the ending? The flick shoulda gone on for fifteen more minutes. The heroine and her husband were supposed to go on a trip to Switzerland near the end, they discuss it.

The better ending would have had the plumber getting out of jail and then showing up out of the blue in Switzerland. Like he followed them all the way to the Swiss Alps and gotten a job as the plumber in their Swiss Chalet apartment complex or something, the toilet would overflow, they'd call the complex custodian and THERE HE WOULD BE AT THE DOOR! The Plumber From Hell Returns! That woulda been the much cooler ending!


Surprisingly, I think this may be the worst film I have ever sat through. It is not a horror film, although I do happen to have a horror of things going wrong with water supplies, so I could have well been made to feel petrified under different circumstances. It is not a thriller because it is so lacking in anything interesting for me to be thrilled about. It is not a comedy because it is not funny. What it is, is a very pretentious waste of an hour and a quarter. Unconvincing is the word here. Of course in almost every film there are moments where you are inclined to scream at the screen to encourage the character to do this or do that to avoid catastrophe. Here the lead does nothing sensible at any point during the whole of the film and the plumber who is very annoying indeed comes off as being not quite as silly as her. As for the endingI despair!


I did not expect to like this movie.

I am currently studying animation in college, and perhaps more than other people I've been expecting less and less from Disney since they started putting out sequels to their classics. I've been terrified ever since I heard that a "midquel" to Bambi was in the works, since I was positive it would be another campy, over-the-top rehash of the original.

Imagine my surprise, then, at the quality of Bambi 2. Perhaps it's because there's a legitimate gap in the original story for this to fill (Between the death of Bambi's Mother and his return as an adult), or maybe because of the creative details that were added (Several ideas and sequences were taken straight from the book, which was a nice surprise), but I found myself genuinely enjoying this movie.

Disney really seems to have put some thought into the kind of legacy they're picking up here. The themes and art style of the original are carefully preserved, the characters are expressive and lively. There is no sarcastic or self-aware humour; the writing is thoughtful and the storyboarding is beautiful. My one qualm are the two songs used in the film. They seem too...modern. I missed the choir. Luckily, those are two brief moments in an entire film.

If it had been left up to me this film would never have been made, but I can't imagine it being done with more care and respect for Walt's vision. The characters are treated with respect, the story has real meat to it, and the result is a great movie.


Well, kiddies......... those horrific visions I had of Bambi, Thumper and Flower line-dancing in their ghetto-rap outfits with some knuckle-headed "Poptart" caterwauling in the background were all for naught. I'm not gonna give away all the goodies-would'nt be fair to all my fellow "Mousies" to spew out any spoilers- but I can tell you this......aside from a few issues that sorta chapped my inner child, this is simply the best DTV that "The House of Mouse" has ever released. The animation is every bit as good as a lot of the recent theatrical films , with beautifully rendered background art and an overall "Technicolor" look that was for the most part quite dazzling .........and how about them voices? I gotta admit the casting is excellent.

Story-wise, well....that's one of the things that I still ain't all that thrilled about . Despite having been "kiddiefied" from a book that was essentially written for adults, the original "Bambi" was still a wonderful film that catered to both ends of the age spectrum, a talent that Uncle Walt had in spades. This midquel is squarely aimed at the lunchbox-tetherball set to the point that unless you're a complete animation nut like yours truly, you might find one or two scenes a bit too cloyingly ooky to your liking. Still, it's heads and tail above any of the previous DTV "Twosies" and even a few of the "Feature" flicks released over the past 15 years, and I honestly think it's gonna do quite well.

One other bone of contention I have however, are the songs.Granted, they used a few snippets from the original's score, but all the stuff produced exclusively for the current film was your typically weak, formula-laden "contemporary" numbers that are so cookie-cutter bland that you can't even distinguish one from the other. That was one of the most wonderful things about the first movie ...even more than sixty years after it's release, the songs were so well written that they sound just as good now as they did then. Sad to say, it's gonna "date" the film in a most unflattering way. Second b.o.c. I have is in regards to some of the character animation ie: Ronno, the porcupine and the groundhog, especially Ronno. Pretty average design that clashes terribly with the rest of the animation and the exactly the sort of quality you come to expect from a DTV.As said, the rendering of "Bullyboy"Ronno was the worst...at times his looked like they'd been lifted straight from "Balto III".....not impressive in the least. On the other side of the coin, The Great Prince looked gorgeous as did the other deer.......Friend Owl was drawn absolutely spot on, though Thumper and Flower did look nice they still did'nt look quite enough like their original incarnations to retain all their charms. As for Bambi himself, well.......let's just say that 90% was beautifully done, but unfortunately the animators' attempts to "modernize" his facial expressions in a lot of his scenes failed quite miserably and were very disappointing. Despite it's flaws, it's still better than all the previous Disneytoon releases and well worth at least one watch.


I grew up watching the old Disney movies, and Bambi has always been one of my favorites. When I first saw that they were making a new Bambi movie, I was really torn. I hoped that it would be a good follow-up, but was afraid that it would ruin the whole Bambi experience.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the movie, though not as good as the original is far surpassing many Disney sequels.

The animation quality is good. Not only is it much better than most of Disney's recent sequels, it is is actually up to, and at some points even surpassing, the animation in the original. The songs were beautiful, and to my immense relief, they are all sung in the background in the style of the original. There is only one point at which any of the animals sing. It was extremely cheesy, but mercifully short.

The only real failing of this movie is that it lacks the fresh, genuine feeling of the original. While Bambi I felt unique and novel, Bambi II often feels cliché and it seems like they are recycling some material from The Lion King. The addition of Ronno as an antagonist adds nothing to the story but goofiness and low-quality humor. The Great Prince's character seems to be the caricature "single dad" struggling to understand his kid. And while Bambi's character has always been humanized (as are all animals in Disney movies) he seems far more "human" and much less "animal" than he did in the original.

Overall, I liked this movie, and was able to get a few nostalgic moments. Although it does not quite live up to the original, it is nevertheless a sweet and enjoyable movie.


I had to admitted that the sequels of most the original Disney Picture movie were often disappointing. However, after I had seen Bambi 2, I found that it was an enchanting, funny and warm movie, it is definitely one of the fewest best sequels came from the original one.

The story happened to be in between the scene that Bambi's mother was gone and the prince, his father, took him; and the scene he grew up. It is talking about how Bambi lives with his father. At the beginning, his father took care of Bambi temporarily until he find the suitable one to take care of him. As a prince, his father appeared to be quite tough to him at the beginning. However, when they lives longer and longer, the father and son relationship grew. Bambi started to enjoy living with his father. Though they were living so happy, his father found the suitable one and Bambi was sent away. Through an accident, finally, the great prince changed his mind and determined to raise Bambi by his own.

The film is well organized. The characters are well-designed and redrew and the story unfold naturally. The background music was so pleasant to be listened to and match the scene very well. Some scenes were quite memorable, Bambi plays with his father and his father slowly unfold his mind. I can see that he really care about Bambi. it is so warm.

Although the original one was more than 60 years ago, the sequel gave me the feeling of the movies of 19th. The original movie gave me a little bit sorrow and made me sad; But this one gave me warmth and hope.

All above are just my personal opinions, other may not agree perfectly, but, for me, it is worth watching and it is one of the fewest best sequels from the original one. I scored it 9.


Absolutely wonderful. The casting is the best too. I don't think any one could have played the Great Prince better. I was really worried when I heard there was going to be a sequel. Especially after the let down of Little Mermaid II and Cinderella II. This time Disney hit the target and made a killer movie.

I would definitely advice others to get this movie, even if you have not seen the first one. (Which it has to be impossible for someone to not have seen Bambi. lol) Even if it is very child like in manor, I felt just as touched by it as I was by the first one. I know it kept me on the edge of my seat, and I'm in college!


I'm an 18 year old guy, and I watched Bambi for the first time when I was 3 years old and I still remember how sad I felt when his mom died. I was thinking Bambi 2 was going to be another dumb Disney sequel.. but it was actually VERY nice to see how Disney kept to the "feeling" of the original movie.. very innocent. I loved that about the original. I bought the 2nd movie the day after it came out for my two brothers who are 7 and 10.. and they loved it! So.. I have to say, GOOD JOB Disney! :) We're proud to have Bambi 2 on our shelf with the rest of our Disney classics.

sincerely, "A guy raised on Disney" lol!


Bambi II is one of those rare gems of a movie that you can feel good about watching with your children. It combines a touching story of a father and sons's relationship as they struggle to deal with the loss of Bambi's mother. A subject that is not easily tackled but the director, Brian Pimental deals with it beautifully. He uses humor and sensitivity to show us how Bambi is dealing with his father's high expectations of him. The use of humor between Bambi and his friends, Thumper and Flower keep the story light enough for kids to enjoy.

As far as sequels go this one makes the grade. It's not an easy task to create something as good as the original but Bambi II succeeds where others fail. It's fresh enough with it's humor but still stays on track with the feel of a classic Disney movie from the the opening scenes to the the musical score.


This movie was extremely entertaining. I am not a big fan of sequels, especially animated ones, but this one is really well done. Disney didn't try to use all the same old jokes and funny lines from the first movie. Patrick Stewart is great as the voice of the Great Prince.

I like that the story is not of Bambi's son but goes back to right after Bambi's mom dies and follows his transition at that time. My kids just love it, have already seen it three times! Flower the Skunk is our favorite with his squeaky smell release! The animation and music are beautiful too.

I highly recommend this one for young and old alike!


Bambi 2 really touched my heart. I watched the original Bambi movie frequently when I was young, so seeing such a great sequel of one of my favorite childhood movies really heartens me. The plot of the relationship between Bambi and his father, basically the ideas of love and growing up, and the feel in general of Bambi 2 are almost exactly like those of original film, and the music, voices, and sensational character and background artwork are also very similar. In addition to appealing to those who loved the original, Bambi 2 is also filled with humor and adventure that kids of this generation would enjoy. The correlation between Bambi and Bambi 2 is brilliant too; no awkward adjustments are made to accommodate an altered storyline. Especially when compared to many other substandard Disney sequels, Bambi 2 is definitely a superb continuation of the classic masterpiece.


The animation was the good part, and the ONLY good part. See, Disney has lost its charm by this point (it's lost it for years--at least since the 70's, when the films became more savvy than charming) and they were trying to necromance a charming movie. But you can't slap savvy on top of charming. It just doesn't work. Instead of the atmospheric silence of the original film, we have hideous pop songs slapped in when the characters aren't yapping. Thumper's siblings are inexplicably turned into very annoying little sisters (Hint to Disney writers: Having screechy characters yell out "big bwother!" isn't cute). Faline and Bambi are suddenly in looooove with each other, ignoring the fact that they'd still be in the cootie phase at that point in time if you paid any attention to the original film.

In other words, fine, Disney can be savvy or hip, whatever. Just don't try to wreck a charming classic with it. Make a whole new film with new characters and release your animators on that. They deserve better.


I was so afraid to watch this movie, because Bambi is one of my favorite cartoons ever, and I was afraid that this sequel will spoil it. But it always bugged me in Bambi, that in one scene his mother dies and his father takes him away, and then, in next scene Bambi is big and everybody is happy. I always felt like there's a part missing. And now, Bambi 2 filled that hole. When I watched it I was enchanted. Everything in this cartoon is so wonderful, nature, music... And the characters are so sweet. This movie have a really positive spirit, it can really cheer you up. It's really lovely. And it actually completes the old Bambi movie. I watched it several times. It's really great! It's really Disney!


I'm sure everyone can remember the first time they saw Bambi, I'm also sure that most of you have cried while watching Bambi, it's one of Disney's most touching films. So I got to see Bambi 2, while normally we have a million Disney sequels that are major disappointments, but Bambi 2 surprised me, it was very well done and was nicely put together. I really enjoyed the animation, the voices, the story, they were really lovely. The one flaw that comes into sequels is how different the voices are from the previous film, despite that you can still notice a difference, Bambi 2 fits the voices very well for the characters. I also enjoyed this new chapter into Bambi's life as he is learning how to become a prince, but still holding onto his childhood and his favorite friends.

Bambi is having a hard time, his father has to take care of him but his father also has no respect for him since Bambi isn't as brave as he is. Bambi will do anything to just get his father's respect, with the help of some old friends like Thumper and Flower, he'll try his best to over come his fear and be a brave prince. But he's got a new enemy, a mean fawn, Ronno, who constantly teases him about his flaws. Bambi is also having to learn how to grieve the death of his mother and make sure that he doesn't meet the same fate as she did.

Bambi 2 is a definite recommendation, it's a different Disney sequel than I've ever seen because it seems like this one could have been in the theaters. It's very well done and just a total pleasure to watch, wither it's by yourself or with the family. I loved the return of Thumper, it's always a pleasure to see him on screen, I loved when he was trying to show Bambi's father that Bambi could be brave, but Bambi needed more time, so Thumper does his best to distract Bambi's dad, it was so cute and funny. This was a good movie to watch, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

7/10