This is a film with genuine heart and soul. It's got depth of characterization seldom found in Hollywood films. Robert Duvall gives a great performance as the sincere but flawed Pentecostal preacher, Sonny Dewey. After his marriage turns sour, followed by a spontaneous act of violence with a baseball bat, Sonny flees his home in Texas and ends up in the South Louisiana bayou country. Here, he changes his name to "The Apostle E.F." With the help of a local Black preacher, The Apostle starts a new church, called the "One Way Road To Heaven" Temple, a tiny wooden building out in the middle of nowhere.

As good as Duvall is in his performance, reinforced by a brilliant performance from Miranda Richardson in a support role, the film's non-actors, local people brought in to add authenticity to the setting, are even more convincing. No Central Casting actors could ever give the depth of characterization that these local people bring to the story. Sister Johnson, in her pink Sunday-go-to-meetin' outfit, and Sister Delilah are just terrific, as is Rick Dial, as Elmo, the local radio station host who gives The Apostle a chance to evangelize.

And whether he's preaching on radio or directly to a church congregation, The Apostle, with deep emotional conviction, shouts out his pronouncements using literal verbal imagery consistent with a literal interpretation of the Bible: "holy ghost preaching machine"; "a holy ghost explosion"; "we're going to short circuit the devil". The congregation sequences are largely improvisational, built on real emotion and feeling from real people; nothing canned here; remarkably genuine.

The film's weakness is the contrived plot that revolves around Sonny's marriage. His wife is played by Farrah Fawcett, a usually fine actress, who seems miscast here. In addition, some of the scenes, especially in the first half, could have been edited out.

You can't have a film about Pentecostal preaching without gospel music. And in "The Apostle", the hymns are old, traditional Bible-belt favorites: "I Love To Tell The Story", "Softly And Tenderly", and "I'll Fly Away". The film's subject matter, largely implied about death, the heartfelt hymns, and the film's lighting combine to render a general tone of sadness and depression, although laughter and joy find their ways into the story, as well.

Despite a hokey, contrived plot, "The Apostle" is mesmerizing in its authenticity of those in the American South who abide by the Pentecostal faith. Some viewers may find all the shouting and foot stomping off-putting. But it is genuine. In addition to being entertaining for the most part, the film will be a real eye opener for some viewers.


Writer, director, actor: Duvall proves he has it all and with remarkable poise. Preacher "E.F." may appear to be over-the-top but he's the most human portrayal I've seen in many years. With this film, Duvall sets himself head and shoulders above the other actors of his generation.


This is the only film I have given a 10 on this site. I find this movie fascinating and brilliantly portrayed by Mr. Duvall. He deserved an Oscar for this performance. Living in Texas (where the first part of the film is set) I know that the preaching he does in this movie seems as real as a Texas outdoor revival! He is a troubled man to be sure, but his character lifts all of us up with each step of the way in the movie. Farrah Fawcett plays a good part opposite him as his wife and the movie seems to split apart in the middle then pulls itself right back together again as Duvall commands the part. I can watch this over and over and still find parts which I love. It is like reading a spiritual book over and over and finding something better about it. I have recommended this to my friends to watch as I have only seen it this year (2006). A fine character study of a flawed man and his obsession with religion at any cost. Be sure to catch it. Mark Lockwood Lubbock Tx.


The Apostle is a wonderfully constructed work that deals with a few intense issues including faith and the Christian's relationship with God. The director uses small scenes and sequences to illustrate how Sonny lives out his faith and to help the viewer experience Sonny's life more fully. For instance, on his way to Louisiana Sonny walks past a bar to catch a bus. Without hesitation he enters the bar and emerges moments later with a slightly inebriated man, telling him that he does not have to go in there anymore. When on his journey, Sonny relies so completely on faith that he actually stops in the middle of a crossroads and kneels to pray, asking God to direct him. God does not disappoint. Though The Apostle is a work of fiction, it does a great job of presenting faith that is shunned by the world and continuously proved by God. When Sonny stops to pray at a car-crash, it appears that the wife is probably dead and the husband is in fairly critical condition. Sonny prays with them despite an officer's orders and drives away. As Sonny is leaving, the viewer sees the wife's hand grip her husbands, presumably showing God's work in the situation; Sonny's reply: "Momma, we made news in heaven today." Duvall's film also deals greatly with the humanity of Christians. Though Sonny is a murderer and a womanizer, God still chooses to use him. One cannot help but to think of Abraham being called and leaving his idols behind. Some say that art imitates life, while others argue that life imitates art. Whichever is true in the end, the Apostle paints a picture of beautifully honest and flawed faith; a picture that everyone can learn from, no matter where they walk.


I watched the Apostle two nights ago, and I rented it partially out of guilt. I saw a film called "The Ice Harvest" that made me realize I wanted something a bit more inspiring, more wholesome, more spiritually focused in film. The Ice Harvest strangely enough also has Billy Bob Thornton along with John Cusack as some of the most profane and greedy but not nearly the most messed up characters in a rural Kansas town. Sex, violence, the whole mix, and what's worse, a sloppy ending. So, I rented this because I wanted to be uplifted.

The Apostle often delivers a brand of Southern comfort, simplicity and humanity that's quite refreshing without being naive: I thought it was an important and sobering note that the old man who gives Duvall a tent also sleeps with his rifle on his chest watching him. That combination is very human and very American: we live at once in love and fear of each other very often.

Another wonderful thing about this film is it is race-conscious but very much about integration, all God's children like Duvall says. I love the moment when Blackwell tells Duvall how black he sounds on the radio for a white man.

As for being inspired spiritually, I almost cried when Duvall prayed over Billy Bob, "Troublemaker." As a matter of fact, I think that moment is the spiritual high point of the film, the sinner converting another sinner and saving a church. If we had immediately seen the police coming for Duvall after that, it would have served as a great coda to reminds us that within sinners like Billy, there are saints/good men, and within "apostles" like Duvall, there are sinners.

None of us are as pure as the driven snow, but none of our souls are so black that they can't be redeemed. That's one of the great things about CRASH: that is a film that shows both corruption of the decent and the unexpected decency lying within the corrupt.

The main problem with Apostle, like Ice Harvest oddly enough, comes down to a sloppy ending. (SPOILER) Duvall draws it out for far too long with the sermon: once the police have arrived, it needs to come to a close. Would an officer wait that long to arrest a man for first degree murder? Duvall's rally cry of "Get Behind Me Satan" is quite effective, but it drags on for ten minutes. Finally, Sammy's acceptance of Jesus, given what has already happened to Billy Bob, lacks the punch it should have.

It brings me back to an eerie feeling that I got throughout the movie: this particular branch of Christianity that the Apostle is representing seems to shout a whole lot what really shouldn't need that kind of volume. I was taught a year or so ago the phrase "Preach the gospel at all times: when necessary, use words." It means that it's in our actions that we show our love not just in our words, and it's not just love for other Christians, but for non-Christians as well. And we don't just gather together and praise God so that we may be saved, but we continually strive to be closer to God and bring others closer to God and further from the devil and to CREATING RECONCILIATION AND JUSTICE in the world, working alongside the "devilish" as well as the saintly.

Remember that scene where Duvall drags the guy out of the bar? It reminds me that there are those who say there's the world of the devil, and the world of God and we should steer clear of the former. However, I think it's a world we need to engage and learn about: we need to be in those bars, not just dragging men out, but learning why they're in. We need to figure out about why men really go to strip clubs, why women work there, WHY women abort their children, WHY teens have premarital sex, WHY divorce occurs, and not just dismiss them as things of Satan to be steered clear of. Good fences do not make good Christians.

Now if the worlds of "The Apostle" and "The Ice Harvest" could be combined, that would be a very powerful movie about Jesus in the real world.

I will say though that the last bit of the Apostle (SPOILER) is a great reminder of Duvall's power: he continues to preach even as a prisoner on a chain gang. Now THAT is Holy Ghost Power. Amen. Continue to seek Him, praise Him, serve Him, and love Him!


The Apostle is an amazing film. It takes the subject of faith, within the specific realm of the Pentecostal church, and gives it the grime and grit of humanity. It does not make the faithful out to be angels nor does it portray the non-believers as demons. It takes the main teaching of the Christian faith, that we are all sinners yet through Jesus Christ we are all forgiven, and paints an eloquent story of a real man's faith and how difficult it can be to believe so powerfully. Bobby Duvall is spectacular in a role that must have been important to him. All the technical aspects of the film follow in the footsteps of the fantastic script. The cinematography is beautiful as are the rich southern locations. The actors that comprise the congregation are all so full of life that it makes one wonder if they are acting at all. The opening scene where Sonny, Mr. Duvall's character, stops at the scene of an accident to be with a dying man is sublime. I highly recommend this film especially for anyone of any faith that appreciates the power of faith and spirituality.


This movie should be seen by every person who believes him or herself to be an enlightened intellectual. It functions to assist the viewer in truly understanding not only the culture pervading the southern United States, but also compels the self exploration necessary for achieving an awareness of one's inner personality. Duvall presents an undeniable and powerful image not only of a man torn, but of a man simultaneously driven and assured. One need not be deeply religious to revel, if in nothing else, the extraordinary acting talents of this man. Duvall's angry conversation with God in his bedroom, alone, is a case study in his exceptional acting ability, and the emotion and tenderness which characterizes Christianity's best features is present throughout. Frequently I found myself watching a particular scene with my jaw dropped, silently admiring everything this role meant to Duvall, and marveling in the magnificence of its execution. The movie is, and I've no doubt will remain, a lifetime favorite of mine. It represents what movies should, occasionally at least, be: events, events that make you think, think about yourself, think your place in the world, and the powerful and meaningful institutions which so often influence our lives.


In my honest opinion, I believe that a person who gets lost in his/her own little world can suddenly find salvation without even realizing it.

That's what it was like for me, my salvation came to me in stages, and this was the very first one.

My Mother had passed away a year after this film came out and I had not taken it very well, not very well at all. For a year, I went into complete solitude, intoxicated night after night, day by day.

But in August 1999, something happened to me. There I was, sitting on my living room floor, drunk out of my mind. Too drunk to get up and retrieve the remote control that was just on the other side of the room. So, I laid there, on a single mattress, slobbering all over myself like an idiot.

The Television was stuck on a free weekend premier channel, so I watched whatever came on. If I didn't like what was on, I would pass out drunk, only to wake up later and start drinking all over again.

Even though I had a few moments of sobriety during this particular binge, it still never occurred to me to pick the remote which was still in the same place.

11 PM rolls around, I'm drunk again, and that's when I heard Robert Duvall saying a prayer in the opening scene of "The Apostle" From that moment, I was hooked. By the time the movie ended, not only was I sober, but my mind was made up to begin what turned out to be a four year journey that eventually lead me to where I am right now.

October 15, 2003 was the day I became Born Again, and my life has gotten better and better ever since.

For those of you out there who feel lost, sad, confused with how your life is going, or if you're just interested in a good character study, or even if you're just a fan of actor Robert Duvall, watch this movie and I promise you, it will change your life as well.

And That's All There Is Too It....


There is one compelling reason to see "The Apostle," and that reason is Robert Duvall.

Duvall directed himself in this story about an evangelist who embarks on a self-assigned mission to save souls when his own life goes wrong. Duvall gives a scorching, blistering performance in the title role, sinking deeply into his character until you feel like Duvall the actor no longer even exists. He also proves himself to be a competent director, even though that hasn't been a calling he's pursued subsequently.

It's just criminal that Jack Nicholson beat Duvall for the 1997 Best Actor Award with a performance like the one he gives in "As Good as It Gets."

Grade: A


Duvall is, without doubt, one of the finest actors on the C20th screen. Unlike so many superstars (Nicholson, Pacino, Hoffman), you forget he's Duvall within the first couple of minutes of his performance. "The Apostle" is no exception.

Here we have a completely three-dimensional view of a man carrying personal demons and plenty of psychological baggage. Duvall certainly deserved his Academy Award nomination.

The central idea of the movie is also very strong: preacher seeks redemption from past deeds by once more bringing the power of the Word to a small community.

But Duvall the actor, executive producer and director is not equalled by Duvall the writer. I sat watching with the constant niggle that something was missing. And as the final credits scrolled, and reminded me that Farrah Fawcett, Billy Bob Thornton, Miranda Richardson and a handful of others had been on screen, I got the sudden revelation that none had had a part anywhere near as round as Duvall's.

This truly is a one-man movie. Even though the director is on screen for virtually every shot, it's not an egotistical piece. But it's not a deep as it could have been. Which is a great shame. Because with an antagonist of some kind, this would have risen from good film to masterpiece.

Watch it, but only for the central performance. And for the two black children playing their ukelele. They're great.


After watching this film, all one can say is wow!! Robert Duvall comes through big in this film about the life of a fascinating man who makes a mistake and decides to start off anew. Duvall spent many years writing and trying to get his film picked up and all efforts came to no avail. Duvall ended up financing and directing the film himself which makes the success of the film all the more fascinating.

Duvall plays the Apostle E.F., the shouting, ranting, Jesus-infested man who has lived the church for his entire life. Every word he speaks is Jesus, everything he does is Jesus and everywhere he goes, he goes with Jesus. All seems to being going well for him until his unsatisfied wife leaves him for a younger man, taking along his beauties (children) with her.

This film is a delightful story of a man most people know or have met at some time in their lives. Duvall did well to keep himself on screen throughout the film so that the audience could get a good idea of who he was and how he reacted to different situations. This movie is my favourite of 1998 and is recommended to all.

8/10 stars.


I am not familiar with this type of preaching. Robert Duvall really makes his preacher believable, both in his faults and in his strengths. Certainly one of the best new movies that I have seen in a long time. The story will seem slow to those who demand violence every 5 minutes, but slowness is really necessary to give the full picture of the "Apostle" as he develops as circumstances change. A really outstanding movie.


I was born and raised in the South. Be assured that, in the renditions of character in "The Apostle," nothing was "over the top". If you want to see a splendid portrayal of the process of redemption in its most elemental form, see The Apostle.

"The Apostle" and "L.A. Confidential" tied for best picture of 1997, the fatuously awarded "Titanic" notwithstanding.


This movie felt too natural to be a film. Duvall gave one of the finest performances I have ever seen. His insight into this preacher's soul was amazing and inspiring. This is Americana encapsulated for all to view.

Hollywood would have made it bigger than life, I liked this because it was as small as life. Life is full of sordid details and imperfections. Duvall chose to portray the good with the bad, and enabled movie-goers to experience what comes from powerful stories portrayed by a wonderful supporting cast.

I found John Beasley's performance the strongest I have seen from a supporting character, possibly ever.

If only Hollywood and the movie moguls could make more human stories like this, life would be too sweet. While nothing blew up, this movie had action and power in it.

The story leads in ways I never expected to be led. In the time of high predictability in movies, this one had small surprises, some good, some bad - all very real!

Kudos to Duvall for going that extra mile on his one way trip!


Robert Duvall's portrayal of E.F., Sonny, or whatever you would like to call him is simply amazing. Duvall has created an imperfect hero, a hero much easier to relate to because he has shortcomings and flaws. If you're looking for Billy Graham, you won't find him in this movie, but what you will find is a flawed hero with whom we other flawed human beings can relate to. If you don't watch another movie this year, at least watch _The Apostle_.


The Apostle is, by far, the greatest movie of 1997. BETTER than Titanic. It's really a shame that Robert Duvall had to invest almost all of his own money to finance this film. People that he counted on to be there turned their backs on him. But that didn't stop Duvall from making this remarkable, powerful movie. If you're not moved by this movie, you must be either: 1) Stone Cold, 2) Satan, or 3) Dead.


When I saw the film with my lover he said, "Who knew he could preach!" when Duval performed his final sermon. It is an awe-inspiring performance.

I am a pastor's kid and my father was good, Duval shows greatness.

In the film Duval's character is deeply flawed but also deeply faithful.

What makes this film great is a clear view of evil to redemption to punishment to resolution.

In 97 there were only two truly moral flms. Very different films. Boogie Nights for family values and loyalty, and The Apostle about redemption.

What and incredible year with two profound films in the same year.


I only gave it a ten because Robert Duvall was in it, and also June Carter Cash.

Sonny was a stupid SOB who thought he was doing the Lords work. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a particularly religious person myself, but I think I'm intelligent enough to know that men of god don't go around drinking whiskey, and killing people with baseball bats, then running away, and of all the nerve, starting a new ministry.

Some of the folks seemed to like him, but I couldn't stand the bastard he was a drunk, a womanizer, and by all indications a blasphemer.

I loved the movie, because I hated Sonny so much, which is a tribute to Duvall for doing such a good job of portraying him.

Thanks for letting me express my opinion.


I can't begin to explain how chilling it is to believe that there are people walking around on our streets who are actually like this. Duval shines in this story of a freakish preacher on a one way trip to the place of fire and brimstone. The acting is great. The inclusion of some of the trance inducing 'sermons' of the obviously real life charlatans is great. Thankfully, it's only a film and it ends before the collection plate comes your way.


A decent film powered along by an astonishing performance by Robert Duvall. Other than him though it's frankly a little dull with only the scenery adding any comfort. Duvall stars as a wayward preacher who, after one too many run-ins with his ex-wife and her new lover, finds himself on the run and wanted for murder. He ends up in a tiny village in the middle of nowhere and begins to rebuild his life knowing full well that the Police will close in on him eventually. You feel very much for Duvall because you can see the power and belief of his character and the self-destructive streak that results. It's also probably the best religious film ever made due to it's generally pro-Christianity atmosphere but also it's unwillingness to shirk from the fact that we are all, at the end of the day, merely human. This balanced perspective allows it to not be to depressing or to sugar-coated. Still, it drags a little in places and the lack of any real supporting characters puts too much emphasis on Duvall. He's great don't get me wrong, but a little more exploration of those around him wouldn't have gone amiss.


This is the only movie that I have literally walked out of for sheer boredom. Needless to say, I won't be revealing the end of the story here.

Robert Duvall puts in a stunning performance. However, the storyline has none of the Duvall's depth and simply unfolds, or perhaps unravels, in a meandering and uninteresting sequence.


Duvall is nothing less than superb in this movie. I don't recall him playing a more believable character ever before. The one disappointment in the movie was the church scenes. I belong to a Christian church with "enthusiastic" members and Pastors. However, they don't stand around screaming the same one liners the entire time and I don't recall ever being in a church that did. They usually have a message for the day and it is different all the time. I am sure some more research could have been done to make the church scenes more realistic. I might have had more compassion for E.F.'s situation had he gained more of my respect by giving a great sermon.


Just because the main character is oh so COMPLEX does not mean the movie is going to be interesting. And just because Robert Duvall is one of the greatest actors in the world does not mean he is also going to be a great director and screenplay writer. "The Apostle" certainly supports the idea that great actors make lousy directors.

Obviously I am of the minority opinion. Much like a charismatic preacher with a gullible flock, this movie seems to have bamboozled a large number of respectable critics and laypeople, including my brother whom I love and who insisted I watch this movie. Whether I will be able to forgive him remains to be seen.

Like many actor-directed projects, this one creaks under the weight of its creator's humongous ego. As somebody else here rightfully pointed out, Duvall is way too old to play a guy who was a toddler in 1939, whose mother looks like his wife, is married to Farrah Fawcett and who would slobber over Miranda Richardson without her laughing at him as a dirty old man. Apparently Duvall did not want to let a younger actor play Sonny because he could not resist the chance to preach.

And does he ever preach. All the time. At least 80% of the scenes consist of him preaching. (SPOILER COMING) Even when he is about to be arrested for the murder of his wife's lover, we still have to put up with 20 minutes of preaching and singing and shouting and praising the Lord before the police can finally lead him away. An actual sermon would not go on as long as this movie does at two hours and 14 minutes. "The Apostle" is a sermon punctuated by the occasional plot point.

And unless Sonny was going to get some sorely needed humility quickly I did not care what became of him. He is a despicable character but not very interesting in his odium because as we hear over and over ad nauseum he Loves the Lord and therefore is not a villain. He is Complex. He has Weaknesses. Apparently he cheated on his wife because they talk about it. Why they couldn't have substituted one womanizing scene for one of the many preaching scenes is unknown. What makes the movie so boring is that this supposedly complex character does not develop. He does not change. He does not undergo any spiritual experiences himself despite the fact that he is a murderous drunk. The phrase "Physician, heal thyself" comes to mind. One could say here "Preacher, save thyself."

Why so many people are singing this movies praises is odd though not entirely a mystery. A brilliant actor directed it. It is about Serious Matters and it attempts to do something Different. Its settings are rural which seems to charm a lot of people. And it certainly seems to go out of its way to avoid being confused with entertainment. No, it aspires to be High Art. Just because it has aspirations does not mean it succeeds in those aspirations. It is a prolonged, self-congratulatory, one-note, boring, plot less abomination.


The Apostle had some good points, among them competent actors, good production values and convincing locations. The noisy "Bible belt'" meetings were amazing to a foreigner, but nonetheless believable.

However the inappropriate casting, mumbled dialogue, and the poor script and direction appear to me to be unforgivable self-indulgences on the part of the film-maker.

Duvall was about 20 years too old for the role he played. The main character was supposedly born around 1936, and the cars in the later scenes were early 1980s models, so the Duvall character would then have been about 46. In fact Duvall was 66 in 1997.

For this reason, it took me some time to work out that Farah Fawcett, 16 years his junior, was his wife, not his daughter or niece. In the early scene at the car-wreck site, the woman riding with Duvall, Anne Carter Cash, born 2 years before Duvall, appeared to be his wife. Nowhere in the film was it explained how she came to give birth to the Duvall character when she was only 2 years old.

And while we are on that scene, do police officers at a crash scene really stand around on the roadway chatting while in the adjacent field the injured are dying in one of the cars, with nobody paying them any attention, let alone rendering assistance? I found this astonishing, and unconvincing.

With a better script and a more competent director, and of course an actor of the right age, this could have been a good movie.

Peter H.


When this was made, MGM was no longer making a serious effort to get Hedy Lamarr good roles. Though while the story isn't all that brilliant, Hedy's infinite loveliness and a few lightly amusing parts make this movie worthwhile. She's just impossibly gorgeous and a very warm presence throughout. And such a charming voice she had! Her and William Powell made a pretty good on-screen couple in this their second and final film together. He supplied most of the humor while she supplied all of the heavenliness. This movie certainly isn't a monumental classic, but it's quite entertaining.


This delightful film works well because of the perfect combination of William Powell and Hedy Lamarr. It's a classic screwball romantic comedy -- silly, fluffy, hilarious. Stunningly beautiful Hedy Lamarr (who was actually a serious intellect offscreen) is surprisingly convincing as a ditz who is blithely unaware of the effect her obsession with astrology is having on her long-suffering professor/astronomer husband (Powell). If this were real life, you'd want to throttle her -- but that's a lot of the humor here. Powell puts across just the right amount of loving good humor mixed with near-homicidal frustration. There are some cute surprises along the way, and lots of recognizable character actors rounding out the cast. While the script falls short of the witty dialogue you'll find in comedies like The Palm Beach Story and Bringing Up Baby, it's still a fun trip down memory lane.


Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this trite comedy, but it seemed to me to be all over the place. Hedy Lamarr plays a silly woman, who, neglected by her astronomer husband, William Powell, believes an astrologer who tells her that she will meet another man at a certain time. She does, and it turns out to be the neighborhood air raid warden, James Craig. She then announces she's leaving her husband, to his consternation.

The heavenly body refers to Lamarr, of course, who is absolutely gorgeous in this movie as usual, if not much of an actress, also as usual. She did have one of the most exquisite faces of all time, though. The heavenly body also refers to Whitley's comet, a comet to be named after her husband.

Powell handles the comedy well. It's a good cast, mildly enjoyable, but in the end, there's not much to it.


Enjoyed this silly 1944 Comedy starring William Powell, (William S. Whitley) and his wife, Vicky Whitley, ( Hedy Lamarr). Vicky is being badly neglected by her husband and seeks the aid of a woman Astrologist who predicts she will meet another man and fall in love. Vicky's husband Bill is a very famous Astromist who has recently discovered a new planet in the solar system and has no idea that his wife Vicky is not happy with him. Vicky does meet a handsome young man in her life who is a neighbor and is also an Air Raid Warden, which was needed during World War II. Hedy Lamarr looked fantastic in this film and her natural beauty is clearly shown along with her great acting abilities. Great actor William Powell gave and excellent supporting role and it looked like they both enjoyed making this film. This is a worth while film to view from 1944.


"Heavenly Body", which was shown on cable recently, is one of those forgotten MGM comedies of the forties that had a lot style and showed a great promise based on the people involved. As directed by Alexander Hall, the movie capitalizes on the talented William Powell and the beautiful Hedy Lamarr, perhaps one of the most beautiful women in the movies of that era.

The comedy seems to be a struggle between sciences that even though sound similar, are completely opposite. William Whitley is an astrologer married to the gorgeous Vicky. They appear happy together, that is, until Nancy Potter, a neighbor, interests her in astronomy. The good natured Vicky falls prey to horoscopes and charts that take her interest away from her husband, who has made an important discovery in a comet that will be crashing on the moon.

Things get complicated when journalist LLoyd Hunter enters the picture and falls for Vicky. William feels neglected and wants to get Vicky to realize what's important and what's not, so he takes matters into his own hands and has a confrontation with the astronomer Ms. Sybill. Right after that, Vicky realizes how much William loves her and leaves all the predictions aside.

William Powell was an actor with a lot of charm. He was wonderful playing comedies, as he shows here. It's easy to see how he would be good next to Ms. Lamarr, who shows good chemistry with her co-star. In supporting roles we see a lot of the best character actors of the time, James Craig, Spring Byington, Fay Banter, Henry O'Neill, among others.

See the film as curiosity piece.


very dull, this conveyor belt programmer from MGM does'nt even have decent sets to distract the eye, as was the norm with this plushest of studios. the script is a piffle on a par with a substandard 70's TV sitcom, and badly overextended. powell was always a class act, but MGM had given up on lamarr by 1943, when it was evident wartime audiences were not excited by her lack of charisma. hedy became a 'household word for glamour, but lacking the spark of personality prevented her from becoming a box office star' according to famed film historian leslie halliwell. and with glamour lacking here, she's merely dull. avoid. she was better - just - in h.m. pulham esq., or white cargo even,


This unfunny comedy establishes a weak premise - an astronomer's lonely wife takes up astrology - then largely abandons it, turning to a variety of creaky devices that just don't work. William Powell, solid professional that he was, gives it the old college try but is defeated by the silly situations and poor script. Hedy Lamarr is beautiful but otherwise does not come across well, comedy apparently not being her strong suit. The usually watchable Fay Bainter is given a thankless role as the smug, supercilious astrologer. The remaining interest in this film lies in the historical/cultural themes: The war (referenced only in regard to minor plot points - the characters seem scarcely affected except that they're scolded for leaving their lights on after curfew), and the role of astrology in American society (it seems to be have been perceived as a way for idle, reasonably well-off women to be parted from their money).


Sometimes it's better to leave things alone. Whereas the original 48 Hours was a well written and acted version of the "buddy-cop" films, the sequel is uninspired and drawn out version of the first. The audience soon loses interest in the characters that they have come to watch. Murphy and Nolte do not add any depth or growth to the characters that once made them famous. It appears to be a film where the cast & crew walked through the motions of production and collected a hefty paycheck at the end. Unfortunately the audience discovers after paying the price of admission, that if you want another 48 Hours, watch the original.


This is a pretty entertaining sequel, but totally inferior to the original in almost every way!. I enjoyed this film quite a bit, however a lot of it is rehashed,and it had some shocking but bizarre plot twists, don't get me wrong i didn't see them coming, but they didn't make any sense, however Eddie gets to show off more with his comic talent, and had a lot more to do this time (in my opinion). Nick and Eddie still had awesome chemistry, and the film is constantly entertaining, it's just it's nowhere close to being as good as the original, and felt they could have done a bit more new material. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit however it can't match the original. The Direction is good. Walter Hill, does a good job here nothing special but he kept the film at a fast pace! good job. There is a bit of blood. We get lots of pretty bloody gunshot wounds but that's it. The Acting is very good. Nick Nolte is fantastic once again, he had awesome chemistry with Eddie Murphy, was likable,kicked that ass, and was lots of fun to watch!. Eddie Murphy is AMAZING as always, and is just plain hilarious,however both of them seemed to be going through the motions at times, still they gave it there all, and they were both great, plus Eddie gets to show off his comedic talent more! (Eddie Rules!). Brion James is good here,but didn't have enough screen time.Andrew Divoff, is great as the main villain, and was very menacing. Ed O'Ross is also good with his limited screen time. Overall well worth the watch, just don't expect the original. *** out of 5


POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

"Another 48 Hours" is a waste of time, talent and space.

Why?

Because ANYONE who saw the first film could see the plot holes. Plot holes that are big enough to fall through, along with 10 other people.

Apparently, Jack Cates (A tired looking Nick Nolte)is obsessed with The Iceman, a drug dealer. During a deal gone bad that may cause Cates to lose his job and end up in prison, he finds Reggie Hammond's (A bored looking Eddie Murphy)picture. It seems that Hammond, who is STILL in jail, is now a target. There are 2 biker guys, one of them is the brother of the bad guy from the previous film, that want to see him dead.

There is too many cooks trying to cook this sad excuse of soup. Many things are not explained. For example, the identity of The Iceman. When you do find out who it is, you will scratch your head and wondered what the hell is going on! I'm not going to reveal WHO it is to those who haven't seen it. I only want to say four words:

IT MADE NO SENSE!!!!!

For those who haven't seen the film, for God's sake, don't rent it, because you'll want your money back. Catch it on TV (It's ALWAYS on!)and save your cash.


To many people another 48 hours is a like a remake of the original. I can see why they would think so. many of the scenes are just like the ones in the first movie. However I believe it had a new plot being to catch a mysterious criminal known as the Iceman. I thought it had a great twist on who was the main bad guy after all. The end shootout was one of the best in the action movie history. There were also some good comedy scenes between Murphy and Nolte. Andrew Divoff does good as Ganz brother. Murphy's scene in the bar however is bad and does not even come close to the original. In my opinion this was a good action/comedy sequel to a classic original.


Eight years after the original 48 Hrs., this sequel was released. Nick Nolte reprises his role as Jack Cates. Of course Eddie Murphy also reprises his role as Reggie Hammond. Reggie is back in prison and Jack is still a cop. Jack has been after a drug dealer named the Ice Man. The film opens with some bikers murdering 2 cops and a bar tender. At a raceway Jack gets in a shootout with a couple of men and kills one of them. The other gets away and Jack finds a picture of Reggie that one of them dropped meaning there's a price on his head. Unfortunately no other gun is found at the scene so Jack's claim of self defense looks like it's BS.

Jack then asks Reggie help him, but Reggie asks for the money Jack has been holding on to for him. Jack tells that he won't give him the money unless he helps him, but Reggie refuses. As Reggie is being released from prison on a bus, 2 of the bikers from the beginning start shooting at the bus causing it to tip over. This forces Reggie into the hospital, and Jack has the hospital release Reggie into his custody making them partners again. There are a lot of action scenes including several shootouts and a big bar fight. There are also lighter, funnier moments as well. The formula is very similar to the original, although it's not quite as good.

I won't give away anything else in the movie. Overall this is an entertaining action-comedy and a worthy sequel to the classic original. Nolte and Murphy have good chemistry once again. If you liked the first 48 Hrs. then definitely give this a shot.


When I was little and saw the first 48 Hours, I thought Eddie Murphy looked pretty scrawny in that suit and that, upon seeing the sequel, he looked a lot more fashionable. Then I realized he was wearing the same suit throughout this movie (I guess he was in a lot better shape). Other than considering this film to be a fairly entertaining rehash of the first, I guess that's my review.

Although I must mention that if someone were to fire a Desert Eagle handgun as close to their face as Andrew Divoff does in the final act of this film, he would probably burn his cheek and deafen himself... but I guess that's just part of Walter Hill's bombastic direction.


Here we go again! Jack Cates(Nick Nolte) and Reggie Hammond(Eddie Murphy) are back together, only this time, the things get more extreme. In "Another 48 Hours", Cates and Hammond go after a man known only as th "Ice Man". Not only that, there's an inside man in the police force helping him out. Things go bad for Hammond when his car gets blown away, was shot at when he was in the prison bus. What's even worse, one of the killers is the brother of Ganz(The killer from the first movie who stole Cates' gun). Unlike the first one, there were some biker action. I liked the part when the biker went right through the movie screen. Anyone could mistake that for 3D. There was more shooting. This one has a little more carnage than the first I should say. It was funny when Reggie finally took the lighter from Cates after he was shot. Nothing seems to change in that movie, the fun factor was still there, and the comedy was there as well. Enjoy! 4 out of 5 stars!


I have to admit this film has a 'Have I met you before' feeling to it. But then most sequels do. Same characters, same personalities leads to some of the stuff being same-ish. Yet I ask you, how many people do you know that drastically change overnight? Not that many. So the same characters having the same reactions and habits to similar situations is not that far fetched. Hill Street Blues characters didn't change that much either yet it stayed entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting is of a very high quality and so are some of the action scenes. And there is a twist in the film I didn't see coming. So all in all, not a classic yet highly entertaining, and that is what it was supposed to do.


Before 'Another 48 Hours' was released, things were already in an uproar. Nick Nolte and others involved with the movie, vowed never to work with Eddie Murphy again. There were constant spats on the set with the biggest complaint that Murphy would arrive three hours late for filming while everyone would have to set around and wait for him to show up. If the above was true, Murphy is not the one to blame for the movies failure. 'Another 48 Hours' offers no surprises, originality and a "plot" that has been recycled over and over again.

Co-written by the director of the first installment, Walter Hill, (who had years to come up with something good) gives the fans of the original a HUGE letdown. The opening scene has three bikers cruising all over the country blowing innocent people away and apparently they work for a major drug dealer known as Iceman that Jack Cates (Nick Nolte)has been trying to track down for years. The Iceman wants Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) dead for reasons that go unexplained throughout most of the movie.

Cates job goes on the line when he kills a suspect who's gun cannot be found after the shooting. The suspect is burned to a crisp in a gasoline fire but the one important clue is unbelievably sparred.

So Cate calls on Murphy to assist in saving the day and while the chemistry between the two was so good in the original '48 Hours,' something is now wrong. Nolte and Murphy don't seem to be enjoying themselves. They are not having fun. And either am I.

The routine plot becomes more routine as the writers seem to know that the movie is not funny and try their best to distract the audience with endless car chases, shootouts, and the likes. One unintentional laugh I got was watching a bus roll over a dozen times at 50 miles an hour with Murphy in it but later seeing him walk away without a scratch. And the so called surprise when the identity of the Iceman is revealed is about as believable as Frosty The Snowman. (Perhaps the Iceman would be a better bad guy in Spider Man 3).

Eddie, come back to us. We miss you.


Sure, it's not a patch on 48 hours, but it does stand as a perfect example of ne plus ultra 90s sequelitis as tougher, simpler movies are retooled into flash bang gee whizz action paintings with money flushed into entourages and re-doing the same things they did almost a decade earlier on the cheap, only this time they all actually get paid (rather than the studio running off with the money and leaving everyone to wonder why a major success still isn't in profit).

So in a sense, this is just the creative players from 48 hours getting paid their due. It's also another spin for Hill on the dying embers of the West, with a motorbike gang (I sense this was first drafted in the 70s) proclaiming themselves the last true outlaws and bastions of freedom before offing some random cops and entangling themselves with Nick Nolte and his amazing never-ending revolver (I count 11 shots in the final barrage of bullets into the bad guy alone).

Familiar scenes are replayed again by people now so rich (and yes, I'm thinking Eddie Murphy here in a redneck bar) that the good guys come off as cruel rather than heroic.

Bult Walter can still trade gunfire with anyone out there, and for that reason alone it's worthy of your attention. It also looks like a Tony Scott film with it's earthy tones and blazing suns. Pair up with Scott's Beverley Hills Cop 2 for a great retro night in.

And if you don't like, wonder how far sequelitis had worked before we ended up with Beverley Hills Cop 3 or Lethal Weapon 3 and thank whatever you worship that we never got a 48hrs squared.


Good entertainment in the ever-popular bad-ass cop/hoodlum buddy genre. I really dug the biker heavies, and the thing with the bus was a masterpiece. I wonder how many old buses they trashed to get that sequence just right? Much like the car chase in "Bullitt"; its the part you remember years after you've forgotten the plot of the film.

Nick Nolte is excellent as the tough but rather dumb cop commuting between mayhem zones in his tired and much abused Cadillac convertible. Most of the western-style action takes place in sleaze-bag honky-tonks and a brothel. Quite effective.

Excellent action throughout but the broken-glass festival at the end is a little overdone. The fake streetcars are very unprofessional. Why spend so much money and effort on some scenes and then blow it on basic glitches like that? Movie audiences DO notice that sort of thing, just like airplane vapor trails in Westerns, so stay on the ball, Hollywood.

Speaking of balls, my favorite scene in this film is the one where Eddie Murphy gets the drop on Nick Nolte with a basketball ! Either Nolte is a very good actor or he really didn't know it was coming. Maybe both. Try doing 20 takes of that scene sometime.

Perennial villain Ed O'Ross (Red Heat, Universal Soldier) is in there as one of the bad cops and duly gets drilled in the finale. Has Ed O'Ross EVER been in a film where he didn't meet a violent end ? The problem is that as soon as you see him, you just know that he's going to be one of the heels.

I liked this film, and it still holds it own pretty well today for a new generation of viewers, despite the autos and clothes now starting to look a little dated.

R. B.


The Movie begins with a meeting of a few bikers. Then a some cops arrive and get killed. (who could have guessed). Then you see a racetrack where some money-exchange is taking place. After a shootout between a guy and Jack Cates (Nick Nolte). There is a little explosion but they don't find the other guys gun. So Jack is in big problems because he is likely to be charged with manslaughter. Jack visits Reggie (Eddie Murphy) in prison and tells him that he only gets his money (which Jack stored for him) if he helps him. Reggie gets really mad. BTW: Reggie says he was in prison for 7 years which gets explained later. Because in Part 1 they always talked about (I think) just a few (like 2 or so, but don't hold me to that) years. Oh and on of the bikers, who are supposed to kill Reggie is the brother of the bad guy in the first movie. Well, Reggie gets out of the Prison and is on his bus. while that happens there is an attempt on Jack's Life. Because he is on the search for a ominous Drugdealer called :The Iceman. (BTW: I missed something before: Reggie was in his cell alone and singing to his James Brown tape. Looks exactly as it did in Part one. When the movie came out, I read that this Scene was put in to compensate Eddie Murphies Wishes. But it was funny one time. The second time it looks kinda out of place.). All that happens in the first 10 minutes of the movie. So you can imagine that there is a lot of action in this movie. After a while they get to be good buddies during the movie again. It's very similar to the first movie. And a lot of scenes are kind of just copied from the first one (I mean storywise) Since Walter Hill had 8 Years to come up with a new and entertaining and sometimes funny story. But the movie just hasn't the charm of the first movie. Though if you enjoy either Eddie Murphy or Nick Nolte You'll like it I will not spoil the rest of the movie for you if you haven't seen it yet and tell you who the iceman is. Now it get's explained why Reggie was in the Can longer. He was framed for illegal money possession in Jail. Since Jack doesn't give Reggie his Money they have to work together, and Reggie isn't happy about it. Nobody from the Force believes Jack about the "Iceman"... Well the story develops as you might think.. They go through a lot and become good buddies again. I am watching the Movie right now. The revelation who the "Iceman" is, that is the only real surprise in this movie, the rest is real predictable. Well it's a typical "Buddie Movie" as they did back then (like from the middle 80ties to the beginning of the nineties)... like the first Lethal Weapon Movie. First the two don't like each other and during the movie they become best friends.(It's sad that they, for the most part, don't make 'em like this anymore).. If you like these kinds of movies you will like this one.. I like them from back when they were new, so I still do. But if you are used to Movie like they make 'em today , I really don't know if you will enjoy it. But it is a pretty good movie. Watch it and decide for yourself. And if you haven't seen Part 1 (48 Hours) get that one too. O.K. I will watch the rest of the movie now and enjoy myself. One last thing: I really think, the movie is worth 7 out of 10 points.


Another 48 Hrs. starts as two vicious killer bikers Willie Hancock (David Anthony Marshall) & Cherry Ganz (Andrew Divoff) ride into San Francisco looking to carry out a hit on Reggie Hammond (Eddie Murphy) who is soon to be released from prison. Meanwhile detective Jack Cates (Nick Nolte) for the past four years has been trying to discover the identity of a powerful drugs dealer known as the Iceman, after a shoot out with one of the Iceman's men Jack finds a picture of Reggie & figures he can help him find the Iceman. Reggie is released from prison & a hit is made on him but he survives while Cherry Ganz decides to kill Jack to avenge his brother's death but a bullet proof vest saves him, Reggie & Jack have no choice but to work together to unmask the Iceman & stay alive long enough to do it...

Directed by Walter Hill who returns from the original 48 Hrs. I actually think Another 48 Hrs. is a better film than it's predecessor on just about every level. The script by Jeb Stuart, John Fasano & Larry Gross is a more balanced film, it moves along at a tighter pace, the action scenes are better, it still has plenty of amusing one-liners but has thankfully dropped the racist overtones & there's just more going on. From the problems Jack has with internal affairs to Reggie having to pay someone off who kept him alive in jail & from the mysterious identity of the Iceman to the fact that Reggie is now a free man & doesn't have to work with Jack just make Another 48 Hrs. slightly better than the original. On the down side it's nothing particularly new or original & while it's not a complete rehash of the original it can feel pretty similar at times & there's just so many buddy buddy cop flicks out there Another 48 Hrs. has sort of gotten lost in the crowd somewhat. Personally I liked it, it has plenty of bad language, one-liners, decent set-pieces & fights & a bit of mystery surrounding the plot although it's not that hard to work it out.

Director Hill does alright but the film looks & feels a lot like the first, the action scenes are well handled & it's suitably profanity ridden. Brion James has said in an interview that Another 48 Hrs. ran for something 140 minutes originally & that Paramount cut huge chunks out of it including a lot of footage with him in it which I find very easy to believe, James name is third in the opening credits yet he comes across as a glorified extra. Interestingly James is third in the opening credits while Murphy & Nolte come first & second although unlike the first film Murphy is now credited first & Nolte second which says something all on it's own. The violence isn't too strong here, some gory gunshot wounds a & some punch ups is as violent as it gets but at least it's a solid 'R' rather than a 'PG'.

Apparently this made near $20,000,000 in it's opening weekend which I would imagine is a decent amount even for films released today so it's maybe a bit puzzling a third 48 Hrs. flick wasn't forthcoming. It's well made with that big budget Hollywood feel & look to it, again set in San Francisco it was again like the original partly shot in Los Angeles. The acting is good with the two leads having a good on screen chemistry & Murphy in foul mouthed mode is pretty funny to listen too, Nolte is alright but seems to be going through the motions somewhat.

Another 48 Hrs. is a throughly enjoyable 90's action flick full of bad language & violence of the sort they just don't seem to make anymore which is a shame but there you go. I think it's a slight improvement on the original & a solid action flick in it's own right, worth a watch for sure.


This sequel gets off to a fairly good start as three bikers from hell meet in a deserted bar . Boy are these guys scary , they're the reason why you don't want to go to an American jail . On deeper reflection they're the reason you don't want to go to America period . Unfortunately having established these bikers are ruthless violent criminals the screenwriters inject a piece of violent action which is totally unnecessary and which draws attention to their actions iun the context of the movie

If truth be told these bikers could have been amongst the best screen villains of the 1990s but the cast are let down by the screenplay , it's both very contrived while failing to explain some things . Bikers are right wing aren't they ? and these " Western Brotherhood " guys confirm this by stating they're like the old pioneers before America became a god forsaken melting pot , so what are they doing hanging around with a black crimelord ? That's because it sets up the sequel featuring Reggie and Jack , like I said contrived . It does explain how Reggie is involved but it's rather throwaway and unconvincing , the script would have been much better if it concentrated on niggling little things like how can characters be abducted from a supermarket and brought into a busy nightclub without anyone calling the cops

If you loved the original then you might enjoy this sequel but it was spoiled by a very clumsy script


The first time I saw this movie I thought it was kind of dumb but after seeing it again I began to realize it was'nt so bad. Sure a lot of the scene's are pretty much exactly like scene's in the first one but there was plenty of good action and new scene's to make this movie strong. the ending gunfight in the strip club was pretty cool(Ive never seen so much glass break in my life), and the bus rolling over scene was cool too. Also, the dialogue scene's with Nolte and Murphy are just as funny as the ones in the first. I dont know why so many people think this is such a bad movie. Sure its not as fresh and original as the first one, but its still entertaining. 3.5/5


As fresh in a tired genre as the original 48 Hours was, this movie really sucks. Is a top-five exhibit for the contention that Hollywood's standard for enjoyable and believable scripts is (inexplicably) far lower for sequels to successful movies. Some of the worst movies in Hollywood history are sequels to some of its best films - start with this and include Halloween II(may be the worst major movie ever made), Jurassic Park II(ditto), the Beverly Hills Cop rehashes(shiver), Caddyshack II. Yecchhh.


Another 48 Hours: 3 out of 10: If you want a synopsis of what was wrong with many movies in the 1980’s (and why the decade has such a bad cinematic rap despite some great films) Another 48 Hours provides a great starting point. (Despite being made in 1990).

The first 48 Hours was a bonafide hit that started and/or influenced the cop buddy film genre for years to come. It was Eddie Murphy’s first film and along with Trading Places made him a star. It combined comedy with intense straight up action and still works today despite having its conventions replicated in a thousand films since 1982.

Another 48 Hours came on the scene at a different time. Eddie Murphy had just had some high profile cinematic bombs and people were anxious for his next great hit. (Little did we know at the time, how great a wait people would have.) Nothing that worked in the first film works here. Eddie Murphy sleepwalks through his role and the film simply is not funny.

The action scenes are not much better. The villains look like a Klingon Biker Gang. There is a muddled story with a reveal at the end that could not make less sense if they tried. The direction by Walter Hill is pedestrian and the jazzy soundtrack practically assaults the audience.

There are a few positives. Nick Nolte seems game throughout much of the film despite the ridiculous script and some of the action set pieces are decent. Over-all the film is a clear miss and an example of why sequels got such a bad name back in the Eighties (Okay early Nineties).

Overall the film is not worth ten minutes of your time let alone another 48 Hours.


When I was four years of age, my parents and I were very much excited about the forthcoming premier of "I Love Lucy" on our "new" television set in 1951. I remember how excited our neighbors, who (with my parents) had been fans of Lucy and Desi during the 1930s and the Big Band Era, were at the prospect of seeing their favorite entertainers in a situation comedy on television. As a result, I found "Lucy and Desi: Before the Laughter" a great nostalgic film that explains the backgrounds of these entertainers, already legendary in 1951.

Far from being a third-rate performer, Desi Arnaz discovered innovative techniques still used in television and film production today; he also invented different types of cameras that led to great improvements in the television and motion picture industries. In addition, he was an excellent musician and vocalist, and prior to the "I Love Lucy" debut he had considerable experience as a motion picture actor.

In conjunction with their television and motion picture work, Mr. Arnaz and Miss Ball formed Desilu Productions and produced many outstanding television series that dealt with a variety of topics and scenarios.

As another credit to the late Mr. Arnaz, he helped his family escape from the Cuban revolution led by Dictator Battista in the 1930s. With the family wealth lost, Mr. Arnaz and his family made a new life for themselves in New York City. Mr. Arnaz willingly did menial work to support his family and his dream of becoming a U.S. citizen and an entertainer. In his autobiography, he expressed his gratitude to the United States and the American people for his chance to rebuild his life and become a success.

At the time the "I Love Lucy" program debuted, it was highly unusual for a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant like Miss Ball to marry a Roman Catholic man from Cuba. Among WASPS there were sharp divisions among those who believed Hispanics were Caucasian and those who believed Hispanics (and other people of Mediterranean origin) were "not quite white" or acceptable in the mainstream of American society. The premise of the Ball-Arnaz marriage and the "I Love Lucy" program, that opposites attract and can have a happy marriage, was a new idea in the pre-civil rights era (before 1961). At the same time, Hispanic migrant workers began moving to my hometown in the Midwest for seasonal farm work, and some chose to make permanent homes in the area. The "I Love Lucy" series helped local residents become broad minded enough to accept the Hispanic people in the community and count them among their friends.

I am sorry the Arnaz children did not appreciate this film. Maurice Benard's acting may have been campy, but Frances Fisher did an excellent job in portraying Lucy. In spite of the overacting by Mr. Benard, this film explains the backgrounds of Miss Ball and Mr. Arnaz and brings back precious memories of my childhood in the early 1950s. The film also is one I treasure and would love to have on DVD.


I looked forward to this film in advance of its presentation, and suspected Lucie Arnaz's negative comments were un-founded. Ms Arnaz, I do apologize.

The story line made for a "C" average Television movie at best. Unfortunately, the subject matter was one the most viewed and known in the 20th century. When the presentation of re-created scenes and actors from "I LOVE LUCY", the grade fell to a D-. The portrayals of "Lucy", "Ricky", "Fred" and "Ethel" were an insult to "Ball", "Arnaz", "Frawley", and "Vance". Fisher's attempt to re-create the "Lucy Ricardo" bits were sloppy. Immediately after its initial TV Presentation, the local TV station did a news segment on it. They cut back and forth between Fisher's Lucy and Ball's Lucy.... it was night and day.

Let me close by saying that the performers in this piece are "quality" professionals, and should be commended for many of their past performances....just not this one.


The lady who plays Lucille Ball did a fine job; the gentleman who plays Desi Arnaz, well ... that's another story. His accent is so grating and so phony that it was laughable. Yet I must ask myself: Why am I even bothering to comment about this movie? What is it about this movie that caught my interest? The answer is this: "I Love Lucy." TV sitcoms come and go and are quickly forgotten. Yet this show, with it s improbable cast of characters, lingers on in the collective memory of American TV memorabilia. A "B" movie actress and her band leader husband become American TV icons. I watched this movie to find out how could this happen. How could these two individuals attain such a high status? There seemed to be absolutely nothing about them that suggested that they would become the most popular and famous TV couple in history. According to the movie, Lucille was vain, insecure, temperamental and at times hysterical while Desi is portrayed as being a shallow, cheating philanderer who is totally dependent on Lucille for financial support. Yet this improbable couple made entertainment history.

When will there be a movie about Vivian Vance and William Frawley?


I enjoyed this movie very much.

This is the only Lucille Ball/ Desi Arnaz biopic I've seen. I have yet to see "Lucy" with Rachel York.

I liked how it started out with the beginning of I Love Lucy and flashes back to when Lucille Ball meets Desi Arnaz. Then it kind of flashes forward and you get both perspectives. It didn't let you know about how Lucille fought with Vivian Vance, or the fact that William Frawley had drinking problems. You get about as a good behind the scenes look as I think you'd get out of a biopic movie.

I'd give this film a 7/10

Thanks for your time.


The story of a driven, ambitious, will-succeed-at-any-costs and climb-over-the-bodies-of-all-my-friends hack entertainer; and her mambo-singing, conga-drummer playboy lounge entertainer boyfriend. Yes, Lucy is the kind of 1930s woman who would have succeeded even if she had to sell her soul to the devil. Apparently her marriage to Desi Arnaz may have been the down payment on the price she had to pay for her success. Ricky is the kind of Latin salsa act that used to be in any smoky Latin lounge in any part of the world. Perhaps Desi set the standard? Perhaps because Desi Arnaz was the only Cuban in Hollywood (he seems like a third string talent compared to that era's Cesar Romero and Ricardo Montalban)? Did he have an edge when Lucy got the hots for a Hispanic? Desi Arnaz certainly thought he was hot tamales. I always thought he looked like a typical waiter at a Spanish restaurant, but then maybe those were the kind of guys women wanted back in the 1930s. "U wan steenk in pit-ate-toes? U wan see me play thee maracas?" Lucy sees some guy who can barely ask for directions to the bathroom; and she listens to his mambo music which she had never heard and did not like; and then she falls in love. Sure, she knew the guy was a blatant playboy and heavy drinker; but so what. He knew how to make espresso cafe in the morning. I always thought Lucy & Desi were like a puzzle that did not fit, and they also thought so too; as they had a terrible divorce and then miserable lives afterwards. Sort of like Romeo and Juliet if they had been allowed to get married in spite of their different backgrounds. Nobody can defend these dead stars, so we just have the books and the movies and TV specials for reference."Lucy & Desi: Before The Laughter" is depressing because these two people seemed to be destined for a life of happiness. They had so much success that they should have been very happy people, but their egos destroyed their love. Without each other they were both very miserable unhappy people. Even though I was not a major fan of either star, I found the movie to be sad because I never realized just how bright their early careers had been, and how much they had going for them when they became so popular with the "I Love Lucy" show. Having seen them on Television in their later years, it was sad to remember that those sad old folks had once been such young, vibrant, and happy people.


At first I thought this would be a Santa Clause rip-off, but after seeing it, I would recommend it to anyone.

Despite the plot similarities, this movie stood on its own merits. The casting was perfectly done, and the actors did very well in their roles. Charles Durning and Katherine Helmond made a nice pair as the outgoing Santa and Mrs. Claus. Who better to play the role of a "young" Santa struggling with identity and relationship issues than the actor who played Frasier all of those years. No good story is complete without a good villain, and Elaine Hendrix -- who played the gold-digging fiancée in "The Parent Trap" -- again played the part to perfection.

I especially liked the subtext of how the power and love of the holiday spirit can overcome the cruel, corrupt world surrounding us.

Give it a look...with the family!


The movie was too fast paced,not much in the way of a plot that hasn't been done before & the actors could not act to save their lives for an exception of Kelsey & even he couldn't save this picture. It is so cliché it isn't even funny. The dialogue is also not that great nor is it into going into things explaining things for an exception of a few secs here or there. I wouldn't even recommend it. kelsey can & will do much better.

I wasn't expecting a block buster here but come on some crappy low budget film could at least try harder. The effects were so overly cheap its not funny.


I normally wouldn't bother writing a review for a made for TV movie, but I got stuck watching while at home for Christmas. Christmas movies are supposed to be kind of cliched, they have to be because Christmas has become a cliche to most people. This movie took that idea and ran with it.

First you have the reluctant Santa Claus, which has only been done a few dozen times in recent years. Then there is the rich man falling in love with the hired help, coupled into man being engaged to one woman only to realize it was a mistake and that he is really in love with girl-come-lately. Then add some cookie-cutter characters, like the proper butler giving sage advice. Or how about that the hired help has a mystery son. I say mystery son because it is never explained if the son is from a bad marriage, out-of marriage, widowed, etc. At least I don't remember it being explained. I won't even go into the goofy cop, the swindling best friend, incredibly sappy happy ending, etc.

I think there are people in the world who would relish a movie like this, but if cliches, and telegraphed plot twists turn your stomach, then avoid this movie.


I loved watching this show back when it first aired, and I loved watching it recently on DVD.

I noticed that as the show came to an end, that 3 episode in particular seemed as attempted spin-off pilots for some of the cast.

Season 5 Episode 19 "Lost Resort" Seemed like a pilot for a Willie Aames spin-off series.

Season 5 Episode 23 "Almost Family" Seemed like an Ellen Travolta spin-off attempt.

And Season 5 Episode 25 "Fair Exchange" looked like a Nicole Eggert spin-off pilot.

Is it just me, or did these really do look like Pilot Episodes for shows that never came to be? All 3 were directed by Scott Baio, so they might of just been attempts by him to get into the director's chair, or it might of been in his contract and the producers let him do whatever he wanted. But they seemed like spin-offs to me. Of course, they never came to be. Of the 3 the only one I think would of had a chance at a half season is Fair Exchange, but, the acting was terrible in it. This shows how worse the other two were. All in all, they were interesting concepts, maybe with a re-format they might of gotten picked up.


Yes I admit I like this show. I enjoyed the first family more but the banter between Mr. Powell , the grandpa , curmudgeon military man vs. silly,naive, party animal, reckless Buddy Lembeck was truly magic and fun to watch every episode. I thought Scott Baio character was horrible on Happy Days and ChaChi was a shark jumper for that show. On this show , I felt that Scott Baio was a great character as the 'nanny' so to speak. It was a light show and thoroughly enjoyable. Not great acting, not exactly ALL IN THE FAMILY status, but it worked and it did not pretend to be something it was not. A light show with OK acting and good for a few wholesome laughs.


I hate to say this but I preferred the first family, the Pembrokes to the Powells, but beggars can't be choosers. I remember when the show first aired on CBS television. Again after a year, the show had a large following but there was not enough room in the prime time schedule for an average sitcom in the age of Cosby Show's success. If you think about, Charles In Charge paralleled Mama's Family on NBC which attracted probably not the kind of audience that the network wanted for their demographics. Like Charles in Charge, Mama's Family was cancelled after 2 seasons. It resurfaced over a year later on Saturday evening television in something called syndication. The same for Charles in Charge, there was the audience for the comedy. Unlike Mama's Family, Charles in Charge replaced an entire family. The Powells were prettier than the Pembrokes but I liked the first family better. Sandra Kerns who played Mrs. Powell disappeared even though her name and face were in the credits, she left sometime during the production to raise her own family sadly. We never caught much of her again. It was more about Skippy, Charles, and the new kids. So I still watched the episodes but I thought the show got weaker with Ellen Travolta playing Charles' mother. James Callahan's role as the grandfather got bigger as well.


Watching Ghosts of the Abyss on the big screen simply took my breath away. The photography was simply majestic, and will leave you in awe. If you are a hard core Titanic buff, you will recognize a little of the footage from another documentary that Cameron did at the same time as Ghosts. The 3-d effect is pretty interesting, but probably a bit overrated. This would have still been a fantastic documentary on the big screen even without the 3-d effect. It does make it very interesting though. They go into parts of the ship never seen before so it was very good. I left wishing it would have lasted about 2 hours longer. Even 90 years later the ship still has the power to take your breath away. I would rate this a 10 for people that truly love the Titanic, but maybe only a 7 for those do not. I left this movie feeling that James Cameron really has a love for the ship and really believes in what he is doing, and not that he just did it to make a buck like some have suggested. A must see for any fan of the Great ship.


Director James Cameron scored, against all odds (and his swarm of nervous auditors) a huge success with "Titanic." Not as artistically strong as several predecessor films about the legendary disaster it rocked the box office boat as new generations of Titanic enthusiasts and curious folk flooded the theaters.

Personally fascinated by the tale of the doomed April 1912 maiden voyage of the era's seaborne tribute to Mammon, with its unsolved mysteries - technical and human - Cameron dives to the wreck site in this 3-D stunning documentary, "Ghosts of the Abyss."

RMS Titanic's grave was discovered by Robert Ballard, the foremost maritime archeologist working today. Using the then latest technology he first located the wreck and then filmed it with "Alvin," a submersible of amazing capability. But today ""Alvin" is to underwater exploration and technology what a typewriter is to a PC. Basing his expedition on a Russian research vessel, Cameron takes to the depths and launches "Jake" and "Elwood," two camera-equipped robots that can be guided from the mother ship's two submersibles through the interstices of the sprawling Titanic. These robots can and are guided through spaces no person could maneuver in, even at shallow depths.

Cameron's intense nature masked by good humor comes clearly across as actor Bill Paxton narrates much of the film. Paxton doesn't seem to be acting as he seeks multiple reassurances from the Russian crew man operating the descending sub that there are ways to escape if something goes wrong.

"Jake" and "Elwood" capture scenes from the ship no previous expedition could. At one point the viewer is staring up front at a bathroom mirror with water jug and glass eerily standing exactly where the stateroom's occupant left it before the collision. The grand staircase is gone but its cavernous space is superimposed by scenes from Cameron's feature film, creating an almost scary sense of reality. Period music accompanies the changing scenes which alternate the brief life and long interment of the grand vessel.

This was a scientific expedition with microbiologists on board to assess the continuing and inevitable reduction of RMS Titanic to dust. But the bulk of the film deals with the evidence of life on the ship during its short journey and the story is told with verve.

This is a 3-D film that fully and beautifully exploits the medium and it's a deep sea outing for the whole family.

All that said, is there anything negative about "Ghosts from the Abyss?" There sure is: whatever the cost of 3-D cinematography it's a near crime to limit the end result to a mere 60 minutes!!

9/10.


Experiencing the ship firsthand and her mysteries, histories, details respected and moralities still teaching, it's a love, an awe inspiring and sad tale of Bibilical proportions.

The mystery and history of the Titanic is fascinating and evocative; nearly Biblical. The largest liner, the ignorance to think it could never sink and the arrogance of not putting on enough lifeboats due to aesthetics, I'm just glad in this day and age we have life rafts which take up so much less space we will never run into a shortage of life rafts problem ever again.

Paxton is great as always, and a documentary setting brings out the explorer within, and is respectfully and well made. Learning about the stairway floating out allowing for easier access to the interior of the ship for example I did not know about.

Good movie.

QUESTION: Anyone know why they were not supposed to go into C deck? They seemed to have a very good, albeit unspoken reason for this.

I see nothing wrong with Cameron's love for the Titanic story, it's a near mythical experience and I find it truly a learning experience and a marvel.

Soon the sea will claim the ship utterly, and the Titanic is a teacher of morality, of a past, and the failings of modern man, and the mystery of history in heart of exploration and awe.

The Titanic will always have something to teach us, and that is important.

The museum pieces are important because it allows for the memory to be respected and a teacher to future generations.

That we can put a name to artifacts assures their memory lives on.

There was no disrespect, in fact quite the opposite.


This documentary are very fascinating and interesting, because they have found so much fact about Titanic, passangers and the crew.

It is also fascinating when they shoot the real Titanic on the see bottom.

James Cameron has made a brilliant documentary about Titanic. It is both fascinating and captivating film which show how the pass-angers and crew made their best to survive the disaster in 15 April 1912.

Ghosts of the Abyss is a film you must see and will to imprison your heart.

Titanic sank in North Atlantic about 100 years ago.


A fascinating blend of present-day remains, and the grandeur of the ill-fated ship on its maiden voyage over 90 years ago. The ghosts refer to the super-imposed figures of that bygone era, who give us a glimpse of what it would have been like to travel on the Titanic back then. With all the effects of 3-D working to their advantage, and the eternal intrigue surrounding the sinking, you are nevertheless left awestruck at the ability of the producers to put this film together from over 12,000 feet below the ocean surface. I found that feeling never left me for the duration of the film, even when I made an involuntary movement to catch a rope thrown at us to more fully exploit to wonders of 3-D. This is undoubtedly an above-average film of this type, and worthy of at least 8/10 from me.


Nicely done, but no shock and awe here. I can't give it more than a 7 out of 10 for Paxton's progressively more melodramatic narration and Cameron's too-heavy reliance on the computer gimmickry, but neither hurt it so much as to take away the effect of seeing Titanic up close and personal. My only other complaint was that Cameron somehow managed not to take full advantage of the IMAX-sized screen. I kept waiting for some soaring shots of the various sides and parts of the boat, but it seemed like he always had the camera right up against them where you couldn't get a full measure. I kept thinking, "Dammit, man, back up." And the CG overlays really did start to irritate me a bit. I wanted to see the boat, but often as soon as the CG effects wisped away, it cut to something else. Overall I guess I thought it a little too cluttered technically and not enough lingering over the human touches.

As for the 3D, I thought it did increase the impact some, more than being a mere novelty, but I agree with Roger Ebert that Ghosts would have been a perfect showcase for Maxivision 48. Someday maybe true film fans will unite....


The story of Titanic is one that has fascinated me for many years,so this was a must see for me.The idea of getting never before seen looks inside this long ago lost mother of all luxury liners was very exciting indeed.This film is not for the average movie goer,it is for people like me who could sit for hours and watch footage of underwater ship wreckage and never get bored.Upon looking at the new footage,it brings back the excitement I remember feeling upon learning of the ship being found in 1985.My only regret is that I did not live the 3D experience of this film in the theater.Unlike other certain documentaries with their political agendas and made by that certain guy from Flint,Michigan,this one you can watch and not get angry,providing you are interested in the subject matter.A good film.


When I first heard about this, I was intrigued, I had been interested in the Titanic long before the movie came out and underwater exploration of the shipwreck had always been fascinating to me. I finally got my hands on the DVD of this documentary and well I was blown away by the stuff they showed from INSIDE the ship, it was a pity that they didn't show more, because they could've easily omitted parts where they were on the Keldysh and the poorly recreated scenes from the ship.

All in all, this was good and showed some stuff I haven't seen before, but if you really want to see better footage of the shipwreck inside and out I'd recommend other documentaries that are in the same line as this one. But yet it was still interesting, light-hearted and mind blowing to see the condition of the ship itself.


I thought that this new James Cameron's movie was quite different. It's actually a documentary, yet I found it touching. The way they talk about some of the passengers almost made me sad. I really liked the way they show how it was in 1912 and how it is now. How the water did its work. All the machinery and equipment was quite impressive.

Although it was a big budget production, it was deceiving in the way that you pay something like $20 to get in the imax and the movie is only 70 minutes long. And the Imax effect was not that great. I did not feel "in" the movie. It would have felt the same to me watching it on regualar screen.


it made me laugh and it made me cry. but it's strange.

I started this documentary with a feeling of 'hey, I already saw this in the movie 'Titanic', so why must I watch this again? probably it will be exact the same story, but not so good as the original with Winslet and Dicaprio. why should someone make two times the same movie, or worse: why should a director want to make his first movie another time?' (I still haven't got an answer on that question) and I was right: it was boring and annoying as hell, I was eating my nails, it was a stupid documentary. but I wanted to watch it out, because some movies, as La Vita e Bella, are at their best in the ending. and I was right...

the second part made me totally emotional, I even had to cry a little. it was so beautiful, documentary, movie and reenactments mixed with each other. it was sometimes tender too, so I had to laugh.

I am a bit puzzled here, but I am going to give this movie 10 points. long live the Titanic!


Greetings again from the darkness. I was very excited to see this as I have always been fascinated by the Titanic. A few minutes into this, however, it struck me that this might be nothing more than a tax deductible vacation for multi-millionaire James Cameron and his sidekick Bill Paxton. The available technology had me wondering what wonders the great Jacques Cousteau could have delivered to us were he still alive and working. My only real complaint with the "movie" is that we really didn't get much insight into the scientific discoveries and data that this ship full of scientists was able to gather. Mostly it was close-ups of Bill Paxton saying "Would you look at that?". I will say the Titanic visuals are quite creepy and fascinating and the subtle overlays were pretty effective in showing the viewer what section of the ship we were seeing at a given time. Just wish we had been provided with the payoff - what was the value of the trip?


Unless you are a BIG Titanic fan, this movie (better described as a poorly done documentary) will be one of the most unpleasant 70 min movie experiences you will encounter. Any thoughts that something other than the mud-slimed Titanic might be covered--like the animal life down there, or the geology, etc.--will be completely left in the mud. Cameron clearly is _only_ interested in seeing the old ship, and imagining--with some interesting special effects fill-ins--what it was like back when. But all this loses interest pretty quickly: 15 mins would have been plenty. Unfortunately, the 3D glasses added significant physical discomfort to an ultimately boring final hour of the movie. For example, toward the end of the movie, I was wondering whether or not to keep my eyes shut to keep myself from getting physically sick. And I was quite bored by this time. So Cameron this provides "the big moment" in the movie (SPOILER): he takes the joystick controls on a "bot" to save the 2nd bot from being lost on the Titanic. We were supposed to believe that the little "bot" had some real sentimental value: perhaps true for the crew, but nothing was included in the movie to get the audience to the same place. Then we're told that, anyway and after all, the little guy was "quite expensive." This coming from the multi-multi-multi-millionaire Cameron. One of the least effective moments I've ever seen on screen.

But Cameron tops that with the advertisements that state that the 3D effects will change the way we will think about movies in the future. What a sleazy sales pitch, and from a director that I (used to!!) respect! The old premise that only really bad movies are put into 3D--this gimmick has been used many times limit their losses--is not put to the test here. Worse, the 3D effects on a big IMAX screen, unrelentingly continued throughout the full 70 min movie (10 min would have been plenty!) gave me a serious headache, and a sick stomach; both hung around for more than an hour after the movie. Something about the big screen, fast movements, and the length of time staring through the goofy glasses made for absolutely the worst IMAX experience my family and I have ever had. The 3D effects _SERIOUSLY_ detract from the normally wonderful IMAX visual effects.

Forget GOTA, and see whatever the other IMAX feature(s) is in your area. I rate this movie 1 out of 10: it left me bored, dizzy, and sick to my stomach. I can't remember another movie that left me feeling so unpleasant afterwards.


One should see this film in an IMAX theater to get a real sense of scale. Other than Titanica no one has ever witnessed the the scale of the ship short of diving on the wreck. Its a magical experience.

As a movie its odd. First off it was shot not on IMAX film but 35mm and blown up so the film is very grainy. Much of the non-Titanic stuff was shot badly for the IMAX screen. We see close ups that are too close and the camera moves much too fast. There is also the over use of multiple images which give us too much to look at, frankly its too much to take in. Cameron is a great filmmaker who needs to rethink his use of the format.

There seems little point to the film other than being a 3D Imax exploration of the wreck. This isn't a bad thing, but seeing it as a 2D Imax film it kind of loses its reason for being.(I understand that the DVD has more material)

That said if you have the chance see this IMAX. Its over powering to see the scale of the ship and to understand that people walked and died in this very spot.

As an awesome IMAX experience 7 out of 10, though try for 3D rather than 2D.


I'm not sure what negative reviewers were expecting; I went in looking for the very rare high-budget 3D experience and got what I was looking for. I personally spend most of my television viewing time watching TLC, TDC and History Channel and I think my interests and tastes mirror Cameron's to a great degree. For me, it's fascinating and exciting to go down and penetrate the wreck of the Titanic for the same reason that I will be eternally fascinated with the Apollo missions to the moon. It's really exciting to see the previously unseeable. I found watching the scenes outside and inside the wreck to be as exciting as watching the first pictures from Mars Pathfinder... a sense of excitement and wonder in seeing something so remote and so exotic and bizarre.

When I read these reviews I try to find someone who appears to have a similar outlook to myself and then predict if I will like the film or not before I go to see it. My guess is that if you really loved Apollo 13 then you will have a great time watching this movie. You must love science and that frontier spirit to truly enjoy this movie. I think I can say with fair conviction that if you didn't like Apollo 13, you should stay home. There won't be that much here for you. For example, if the fact that the pressure down there is (I just worked it out) is 5482 pounds per square inch doesn't add to the coolness and excitement of watching film from down there, but Jennifer Lopez being on board would, look elsewhere.

If you like 3D, this 3D is as good as I've seen and to be honest I'd love to see this movie again just for the really enjoyable and unique experience of "feeling" right off the bow of the Titanic in 12,462 feet of water.

This is in no way a rehash of the movie Titanic and it has no plot. It has a little funny dialog but it's unscripted. I liked one moment (during the long descent to the bottom):

Bill Paxton: "So, if the motors or battery died, we could get back to the surface by dumping the um.. uh..."

Russian Pilot: "Ve have many options in this situation."

Bill Paxton: "So, we could dump the batteries, though, right, and we'd come up no matter what?"

Russian Pilot: "Yes, but we do not want to do that. This battery costs, I think, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

Bill Paxton: "Can I write you a check?"


I agree about the ending song, "Darkness, Darkness." Best thing about the movie IMO. Here's what I've found out -- the song was written by Jesse Colin Young (of the Youngbloods...wrote the 60s anthem "Get Together" as well). I found a used copy of Jesse Colin Young's Greatest Hits and it's on there, but his version pales in comparison to Lisa Torban's. She's the artist that does the song on the movie. She seems to have vanished. Had a web site, but it's gone. The ONLY place to get this recording that I have found is on the movie soundtrack, which sells for something like $50 on amazon. I guess it's now a collector's item or something.

I tried searching for a download, hoping, hoping, but nada. I sing folk locally and would love to do a version of this song. Have the lyrics. Guess I'll have to come up with my own take on the melody. If you find out any more, please let me know! Georgene


I don't own the DVD (yet), but have seen this documentary on cable several times. It was quite interesting, but what drew my attention was the song played at the end called "Darkness Darkness." I have not been able to catch who sings the ballad or who wrote the song. By the time I can focus on the small print and see the song's name, the screen changes. Can anyone tell me who wrote the song, who sings it in this documentary, and if it is available? Thanks! :O)

In addition, I would like to know what James Cameron sees in Bill Paxton. His acting in all his movies (if you call it acting) is truly awful. His narration in this documentary was just plain pathetic. His choice of words and his comments just did nothing for the documentary. All I kept saying to myself was "I wish he would shut up!" Mr. Cameron should have done the narration himself or at least chose someone else to do it...anyone other than Paxton. Other than that, this documentary was quite interesting to watch. The footage obtained was awesome.

If anyone could help me with the music I've noted above, I would appreciate it. Thanks!! :o)


Wow! What can I, say about this movie that it won't say about itself half way thru? Starting at the end and working back the first thing I, take issue with is the dedication at the end credits "To Walter Lord" the one human who strove to explore and find the truth about the wreck of the Titanic and all things related to it (his uncle was captain of the California, the ships captain charged with not coming to the aide of the Titanic, finally cleared of the charges after his death).

From the horrible computer generated graphics that are supposed to be the rovers inside the Titanic, to the stupid computer generated portholes showing the actors inside the diving equipment this work of fiction, sprinkled with just enough facts to make it try to appear genuine is overworked overacted and not very truthful. At the very least its not very accurate. The most humane thing I, can do is to tell anyone reading this that if you want a more accurate and truthful representation of the events of that night simply go to the store and get a copy of Walter Lords "A night to remember" it may be black and white but it does get to the truth of the matter. If you want to find out about what happened to the ship since it sank I, would suggest the A&E movie "Titanic: Death of a dream" with Dr. Robert Ballard, Walter Lord, The living (at the time) survivors of the shipwreck and narrated by David McCallum. Since i'm spouting off about this movie and making recommendations about other movies your probably asking what do I, know about it? Simple, I've studied this ship and dreamed of raising it since I, was a child in the 1960's of course these dreams were dashed when Dr. Ballard found the wreck in pieces. I, never gave up reading and researching this and other shipwrecks.


this is very good movie about the wreck of titanic it is unscripted and the don't now Wat they are doing they test new robots name bot1 and bot2 later the changed their name into Jake and Elwood just like Blusebrothers and then they explore the ship in places that had never seen since 1912 i will give this movie 8 because i liked it wen the were telling the story about the ship and they show the rooms digital-ed in computer it is very cool. and on the end wen bot brakes down and the other bot have to rescue it so i just think this is very good historic movie

james


This film just had an airing on UK television. I have to say just how unexpectedly good it was. A complete surprise. You rarely get performances as good as this in TV films of this nature. I suppose the fact that it was a Canadian production was a factor. It portrays ordinary people going through some traumatic times, and it does so with an immense amount of tact and feeling. It is heart-wrenching at points which isn't surprising considering the subject matter, but it is well worth keeping a look out for. Gently, and profoundly moving, with excellent location shooting and an apt musical score. Wish I had taped it. These sort of productions never seem to have any kind of review prior to transmission so there is never any way to know whether or not it is likely to be any good.


I'm watching this movie as I'm writing these comments. Anyone who has experienced tragic loss can identify with one of the characters. Kate Nelligan projects a range of emotions and frustration seldom seen outside of theater. Kudos to the writers for characters that can't be forgotten. You can't watch this movie without be haunted by the location, the music, and the story.


This movie tackled closure, which is probably the hardest part of grieving, especially after a disaster. I will never again be able to watch a disaster on the news, without thinking about this film. Much of the film deals with the trauma experienced by families of the victims. Even though it followed the grief of just one of the families, you just new that it represented all of them. We also see the heart wrenching effect it had on one of the fishermen and his family, and once again can sense the effect that it had on the whole community. But by involving the residents, rescuers, medical examiners, and even the media, it broke away from the usual corny disaster movies. If this had been Crowe and Winslett I don't think I would have respected it so much. Not knowing any of the actors helped me appreciate it more. I just couldn't see Nelligan worrying about her makeup or hair. I thought Thomson must have been a fisherman before turning to acting. I really respect this film. Everyone involved should be proud of it.


Hello there, I just did come home from visiting my parents.

When at my parents house,"Blessed Stranger"just started. Normally I disgust pulp movies.. so I also was thinking of this movie the first minute. What actually made me keep watching was the score/soundtrack. Even after 10 minutes the music mesmerized me, it sounded like "Hans Zimmer's - Gladiator,(Lisa Gerrard). I had to leave already after 30 minutes but those 30 minutes of movie where enough for me to understand that "Blessed Stranger" is NOT a pulp movie. It is not over-acted and the characters are for "real". I am going to hunt for that OST! SO, anyone who can help me with that?? Just let me know. Cheers and thank for you minute.

Bye . Peter


It's doubtful this will turn up anytime soon as an in flight movie. It is a very sensitive telling of events after the crash of Swissair Flight 111 off Peggy's Cove Nova Scotia.It's a terrific tear jerker but not in any shallow sense. Kate Nelligan demonstrates once more what an incredibly powerful actress she is. Not too often does an actress bring moisture to the corner of my eyes. Nelligan captured the horrible loss, sorrow, doubts, anguish, frustration and regrets of a bereaved parent so perfectly and without resorting to being maudlin or melodramatic. The lady is a national treasure! Not that the rest of the cast wasn't terrific too. This is a delightfully compassionate and richly human film, very sad but very beautiful.


Oh my gosh, I just got finished watching this show!! What a tear-jerker!! :( A show like this highlights the AMAZING talent in Canada, that often goes overlooked. Beautiful Kate Nelligan gave a strong performance as always. The whole show really pulled at the heart strings, but the final scene broke me down! Hugh Johnson did a TOTALLY believable job...you'd really think he IS the character, not an actor. He really should become a household name! A superlative soundtrack. A deep story about people, and a little bit of what is now Canadian history.

Kudos!