As an EMT/Firefighter and an embracer of public safety - of course I'm going to love this movie because it involves my favorite things. A firefighter, a cop, father & son - a little realm of the outer edge with suspense building throughout - how could it not be a hit? This movie kept me on the edge of my seat and requires you to pay attention to the details so you can grasp the concept. Once your in their world, it's an amazing trip that kept me guessing all the way to the end. It is my all time favorite movie! And I recommend it to everyone!


I love this movie! I watched it for the first time a few days ago and I must say, my breath was taken away by it. I'm not really big into sci-fis or anything like that, but this movie was excellent. It has Sci-Fi, action, drama, thriller, suspense written all over it, all bundled into one great feel-good movie of the decade. One of my new all time favorites. Get it today!


Spacey, soon-to-be-divorced cop John Sullivan (Jim Caviezel) is toying with his deceased fathers old HAM radio one night, when, through some odd twist of fate so common in sci-fi films, he contacts his father Frank (Dennis Quaid) 30 years in the past.

Hold on, it gets much better.

Frank, who is a firefighter, died in a flaming building when John was 6. So, John helps him change the past so he doesn't die. There's one problem - now John's mother has been murdered by a killer John has been tracking in the present day. They must now race against time 30 years apart to stop this killer before he can kill John's mother/Frank's wife, and several other women.

A lot of people think this sounds cheesy, but this is actually one of the best film's of the early 21st century. The film is plot driven, and what a good plot it is. I couldn't say any more without spoiling it. Quaid is great, as is Caviezel. Some people thought he slept-walked through the movie, but that actually seemed right for the character. Honorable mention to Andre Braugher. I've never seen him turn in even an average performance.


I have to admit that Frequency surpassed my expectations. I was skeptical at first but the plot drew me in and held me until the end. Although it tries to straddle several genres, as it progresses it eventually boils down to a mystery/crime thriller.

Nevertheless, I do dock some points from Frequency. At times it was a little too cheesey. Most of the 60's props looked more 90's to me. I hardly noticed a difference at all between the two eras. Maybe I'm too young to tell?

The whole time-travel paradox was handled a bit sloppily, but really no worse than most time-travel movies. On the other hand, it was probably a good thing that the movie didn't get bogged down trying to explain the physics behind the radio time-connection or the details of the time-paradox.

Rather they simply established that this radio communicates through time. It's something to do with the stars; leave it at that. If they tried to offer some lame, detailed explanation, it would have hurt the credibility more. Overly picky critics may think themselves clever in pointing out the time-travel flaws in Frequency, but these are slips that the writers obviously knew about; it's assumed that the viewer will take a leap of faith fairly early on, and thus the movie is able to build an interesting plot from the premise of a "magic" radio.

Consider on the other hand, the latest Star Wars flicks, where Lucas tries to explain the Force coming from tiny organisms in the bloodstream. Bleeehh. What a way to kill the magic and distract from the plot.

All in all, Frequency is a fresh movie with an engrossing plot. I give it a 7 / 10.


i personally love this movie. it's one of those movies that you wouldn't really think of watching it on the theater. but when it gets shown on HBO, it is considered as a rare find. Frequency is a more serious combination on Back to the Future :) it's all too impossible to happen, but the movie made you feel that it COULD happen.

there's a lot of emotional moments here and there, but there's also a mix of suspense which is surprisingly just right. this a great film, if there are flaws, i didn't bother listing it because the story itself shines. great actors too.


I occasionally get sick of romantic comedies, but the other kind of chick flick--namely, the kind having to do with that pure, gushy family love--I just can't get enough of. Plus, they managed to weave this one into a suspense/thriller, and threw in another one of my favorite fictional concepts for good measure: time travel, in this film represented by the parallel dimension through which a son speaks to his father before his death 30 years ago.

In fact, anyone who loves "Back to the Future" for the same reasons I do will gobble up the brain candy in "Frequency." The ways in which the film deals with the thought-provoking concept of changing the past, while certainly blasphemous to the field of physics, sparks some interesting conversation after the credits.

The eerie curlicues of smoky clouds shown in the sky at various intervals attest to the fact that the makers of "Frequency" do not pretend to have a logical explanation for how two men can be using the same radio at the same desk in the same house to be speaking to each other over a distance of 30 years.

I was so captivated by the secondary plot, an old unsolved murder case that quickly becomes personal when father and son play G-d, that I didn't have a chance to care about the unidimensionality of most of the characters, the flavorless dialogue or the predictability of the action. My jetlagged eyes were glued to the poor reception I have for a screen for the duration of the film.

Retrospectively, it was no piece of art! I can safely say that movies like this are much better while you're watching them, but what are movies for? This one was great.


This is a simply brilliant movie. It had me interested from beginning to end, mostly on the edge of my seat. I couldn't guess what was going to happen next, I loved the story and all its twists and turns, and the ending didn't let me down. I will be watching this one again.


I had never seen any trailers or read any reviews of 'Frequency' so when it was there to be watched on a Saturday evening on a satellite movie channel, the synopsis sounded interesting so I settled down to watch 'another movie'.

Boy, did I get a surprise. My wife was working in the other room and half way through the film came in to see why I was standing up shouting at the screen! "SATCH! LOOK AT THE BASEBALL GAME ON THE TV FOR THE SHOE POLISH BALL... NOW!!", I shouted! I have never got so wrapped up in a film before that has caused me to react in such a way.

A month later it was repeated and my wife and eldest child sat and watched it with me to see what all the fuss was about. Like I had been (and was again) they were completely engrossed and openly declared 'frequency' to be a massive hit and 'one of the best they had ever seen'.

After scanning some reviews on IMDB I cannot understand what some people expect from a movie. If I want to be factually informed, I watch a documentary or read a book. If I want to want to watch something that accurately reflects reality, I watch a 'fly on the wall', or read a biography. If I want to be entertained, I watch a movie. One thing for sure is that 'Frequency' entertained me thoroughly and moved me too and, unlike the grizzlers of this world, I am not ashamed to say it.

It has suspense, emotion, plot twists, characters you like and an enjoyable ending. What more could you ask for. Its a sad reflection on our society that some people actually wanted a different ending.

Its an excellent movie that will be in my DVD collection by lunchtime Monday. Amongst my top three ever, I will watch it again and again.


A word of warning: don't get caught up in the quest for an explanation about how a man could possibly speak to his father in the past. Obviously this kind of exchange is impossible so take my advice and don't worry about it, just watch the movie and enjoy it at face value, you won't be disappointed.


I just watched this one again. Damn it's good. A lot of people seem to have problems with possible plot errors, but I really wish they would look past those and see a great movie. When I saw this one in theaters I was so excited that my heart was racing. This movie really has just about everything. And the Garth Brooks song at the end is a nice finishing touch.


This movie did more to explain, use, and get characters out of, time travel paradoxes then anything I have ever seen on the screen. This movie BLEW ME AWAY with how it handled what had seemed like a goofy premise when the flick had come out. I have now watched it from beginning to end on three occasions, and it continues to blow me away. The casting of the father and son in 1969 and the present day are great, and watching the son unfold with every change in the past is wonderful. Why this movie didn't even get nominated for a Hugo Award (the awards given by the World SF convention each year) amazes me- it should have won the award.


Ok, i'm not going to wreck the movie for those of you who haven't seen it, but Frequency had to be one of the best Sci-Fi/Mystery ones I have seen in a long time. The movie is well acted by Dennis Quaid & Jim Caviezel who are stuck in 1969 & 1999 respectively, we see John (Caviezel), a NYPD Homicide officer who is still traumatized by the death of his dad (Quaid), a heroic firefighter. After coming across his HAM radio, he decides to plug it in, and comes across his dad, John manages to rescue him but with serious consequences. The film also boasts actual history events from the 1969 World Series and a finish which will surprise you, it's a movie that you really have to pay close attention to, but it's worth the lenght of the time duration, overall this film gets a 9 out of 10


I've never heard of this movie on tv or anywhere. I've seen the name somewhere on internet (p2p...) and I've checked here on imdb to know more about it, it sounded interesting. Now I've seen it and I put this movie in the top 3 of all movies I've ever seen ! It's amazing, from the start to the end you'll never get your eyes off of the screen. The actors are wonderful, there's really nothing bad to say about this movie. Go buy/rent it it's fabulous !


This is a really a beautiful and touching movie. Many others and I have given many praises to this movie. But its popularity and IMDB rating at 7.5 are quite a surprise to us.

As many of you can only watch it on DVD/VHS now, let me give you an info. I watched it the first time in the cinema and the following 5 or more times on DVD. When I watched it in the cinema, near the end of the movie when John Sullivan Sr reappeared, ALL THE AUDIENCES IN THE CINEMA cheered and applauded. I mean ALL THE AUDIENCES. Really, no kidding!!! It touched the entire crowd. Very emotional and uplifting. I have gone to cinemas for lots of movies, but rarely did I see any effect like this. Based on such audience response, who could doubt about how good this movie is?

Yes, its story line is not 100% logical. But if such measuring stick is applied to ALL MOVIES, I wonder which one can pass and be considered good!

Frequency, I highly recommend it, to be watched and to be owned!!!


This was an awesome movie and it is highly recommended from me. Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel are outstanding in their roles as father and son. The story is this. When John (Caviezel) finds his dad's old ham radio in a closet he plugs it in not really caring about it. But when he starts talking to a guy who he dosen't know he becomes interested in him and minutes later discovers that he is talking to his dad, who has been dead for thirty years. He starts to try to convince his dad that it is him, his 36 year old son, but the dad does not believe him. The son suddenly discovers that he is talking to his dad 2 days before he dies! He tries to save him and talks to him about not trusting his instincs but suddenly loses contact and does not know if his dad had heard what he said. Plenty of twists and turns in this story to keep you into it. Quaid and Caviezel give powerful performances and the movie is facinating and awesome. Great idea from the director. One of the best movies I've ever seen!

**** out of ****


Valdez is more a symbol of conscience!

Burt Lancasterat that time 57 years oldin fact dominates the film by a mystic presence, rather than actually being on screen for any length of time

The bulk of the film constitutes a battle of wits and guns between Valdez and an extremely stubborn leader of a band of trigger-happy gun-slingers

So when Frank Tanner (John Cypher) provokes a shoot-out which results in the death of an innocent man, Valdez asks $100 compensation from Tanner to provide financial support for his pregnant widow Tanner not only refuses, but humiliates Valdez and orders his hired gunmen to beat him hardly, to tie him to a cross, and to drive him out of his place

Again Spain locations represented the American frontier for this revenge tale about an aging former cavalry man who dusts off his old uniform, straps on his old guns, takes plenty of ammunition, and erupt a one-man army against a greedy, rotten, evil rancher and his henchmen to enforce justice at any cost

As the pursuers forge deeper into the wilderness, the situation shifts around with hunters becoming the hunted

Susan Clark (Gay) sides with Valdez without falling in love with him, while Barton Heyman (playing the chief henchman "El Segundo") provides his character with warmth and quality at a pivotal time


...was Bob Valdez's reply when he was asked when he used to hunt and shoot down Indians to eradicate them from rangeland. This is a great movie, one that deserves watching by anyone interested in the Western, and any Elmore Leonard fan. Burt Lancaster gives a great, artistic and very reserved performance as a very tired, lonely man who looks unassuming but should just not be messed with. His history makes him a very dangerous man, although he now only wants to live in peace. Of course, when he tries to do the honorable thing, he is treacherously dealt with, which leads to one of the most entertaining and compelling westerns ever filmed. Also of special note is Barton Heyman, who plays the world-wise Segundo, who quickly realizes that they are not after any ordinary man, and provides a great surprise ending. This is just a crackerjack movie, compelling from start to finish without losing a carefully crafted artistry that any movie lover would appreciate. Highly recommended.


I usually avoid Westerns like the plague, but the pedigree on this film (debut of theater director Sherin, starring Lancaster, Cypher, & Clark and featuring Jordan & Elizondo in their first movie roles) kept me interested til the, well, offbeat ending. Beautiful location scenery and smart writing helps this story of a Mexican sheriff (Lancaster) betrayed and humiliated in a most blasphemous way by a vile land baron (Cypher) over the honor of a widowed Apache woman. Clark plays the baron's kindhearted lover who admires the sheriff for his decency and bravery. Jordan is especially smarmy here as a cowardly would-be gunslinger. Because of brief but bloody violence, a few "S" words, and a threatened rape, this film isn't suitable for kids under 14, but it would make a good object lesson in morality for teenagers. A nice companion piece to Henry Fonda in "The Ox-Bow Incident".


A former Apache hunter, who has lost his taste for violence, becomes embroiled in a running duel across a scorched, rugged terrain with a gang of gunrunners...all over a lousy 100 bucks...and honor...and a woman. This film reminded me somewhat of Charles Bronson's first big box office hit, "Chato's Land". The band of thugs, unlike the group chasing Chato, were up to the job of killing Valdez, but found their quarry to be more elusive than they had bargained for. Very good western, right up there with Lancaster's film of the same year, "Lawman". I still can't feature Burt as a Mexican, though.


Occasionally, a film arrives with little or no fanfare and surprises many who expected just another film. How often we are wrong. That, should be the premise of this story. Each pivotal character woven within this western tapestry seems to have reached the summit of experience. Then why does each ignore the warnings when they arise before hand? For many Burt Lascaster fans, this is a classic role as he plays Constable Bob Valdez, an aging but experienced peace keeper. Townsmen and friends alike, know little of him or his background, until an uneventful day when a rich and powerful land Baron, incites all to chase and corner an ex-army soldier because he "looks familiar." Accidentally killing the soldier, Valdez seeks $200.00 compensation for the widow. When challenged to get the first $100.00 from Mr. Tanner (Jon Cypher) the rich landowner, the task become an impossible quest as Tanner has no intention of giving Valdez anything, but contempt, torture and pain. What ensues is a noble saga worthy of the former Indian scout and tracker. Although, Tanner is the main obstacle, Valdez is also challenged by Tanner's formidable collection of professional gunmen assembled by his experienced right-hand man, El Segundo (Barton Heyman). Among them is Hector Elizondo as a Mexican Rider and R.L.Davis (Richard Jordon) as a cowardly opportunist. Playing Valdez's friend is Diego, (Frank Silvera), in addition there's Tanner's wife, Gay Erin (Susan Clark) who is taken hostage, but ends up anything but. What transpires is a valuable lesson for all. The experience of a man may be hidden by time, but time cannot hide the experienced man. *****


This is a fantastic movie, driven primarily by Lancaster's embodiment of the character of Valdez - a town constable who kills an innocent man in self-defense, only to then become the subject of constant abuse by the slain's pursuer. Valdez's vengeful reactions to this abuse, the episodic pacing, and the great supporting actors make this a real cinematic treat. Lancaster's treatment of voice and body language show he is an actor of extreme talent. Of further interest is the landscape of Spain, which makes up the film's authentic exteriors.


Burt Lancaster is perfect as the aging town constable. He is a decent guy who is manipulated into killing a man in self defense. He tries to raise money for the dead man's widow and is told by the town leaders that they will match any amount put up by the big rancher who manipulated Burt into killing the man. He goes to see the guy and is beaten and has a wooden cross tied to his back. He is set free to walk through the desert back to town. He should die but whit a little help he survives. "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie" would be a good title for this film because Burt's past is that of a man who hunted Apaches. Burt was sleeping but now he is wide awake and woe to those who mistreated him. Burt's character packs a vicious bite. I love Burt in all his westerns and this is one of his top 10.


The opening scene begins like a Sunday picnic/Turkey shoot: well-dressed couples in period costumes milling around, young boys plunking away with their new rifles. It takes a minute or so to realize that this is stand-off with a man sealed inside a log cabin. A few racial epithets later and we realize the man is (a) black and (b) possibly innocent of the crime he is accused of.

Director Edwin Scherin lucked into a fine script co-authored by Elmore Leonard, one of the pioneers among popular writers to take up the subject of racism in best-selling detective and action novels. He uses Burt Lancaster, the title character, judiciously at first, having him enter inconspicuously and a little awkwardly, like a man who knows he is out of place. But soon Lancaster assumes control of the deadlocked situation, and but for the interference of a trigger-happy shooter (Richard Jordan), almost manages to end it peacefully.

This scene sets off the plot events that follow, as Valdez tries to obtain money to compensate the man's Native American widow. Most of the action - except for the bizarre humiliation of Valdez at the hands of a wealthy gun-runner - follows standard formulas, but Lancaster underplays his role so well that the clichés turn to his and the movie's advantage. Add solid supporting roles by John Cypher, Susan Clark, and an offbeat ending, and you have a surprisingly engaging Western that delivers what we expect and then some.


Life's full of coincidence, no? This is true: just a few weeks back, I happened to pick up another novel from Elmore Leonard called 'Valdez is coming'. After reading it, I said to a close friend, 'Hey, this is a great story  and it'd be another great movie..." So, when he told me it already was, I just had to get it and have a look.

Leonard is prolific: not only one of America's premier authors, he's responsible for some of the most talked about films ever, among them being Get Shorty (1995), Mr. Majestyk (1974 ), Jackie Brown (1997 ), Pronto (1997 ) and many others. So, when you get wind of another one from this master storyteller, you sit up and take notice.

Leonard's heroes tend to fall into two camps: the tough guy who's got heart when needed, or the guy with heart who gets tough when pushed. In both cases, you get a character who's the type of guy you'd always like to have as a friend, but never as an enemy...

Bob Valdez (Lancaster) is the local constable who gets caught up in a stand-off between an alleged killer and a vigilante posse led by Frank Tanner (Jon Cypher). After being forced to kill the accused murderer, Valdez tries unsuccessfully to persuade the towns' leaders and Tanner to kick in some compensation for the man's Apache widow. They refuse, of course, and, in the process of asking Tanner again, Valdez is cruelly treated: Tanner orders his men to tie a wooden cross to Valdez's back and then forces him to walk back to town  some fifteen miles.

Unhappily for Tanner, he picked the wrong guy to bully: Valdez is a retired scout and Indian fighter who knows how to exact revenge. He returns to Tanner's spread and kidnaps his girl friend, thus forcing Tanner to pursue both of them into the high sierra  the very place that Valdez knows better than anybody. That sets up the final confrontation between the two men, but preceded by Valdez picking off eleven of Tanner's men with better tactics and better firepower. And, for a western, the final scene is unique: you'll never see another western with an end like it. Bar none...

Filmed in Spain, up in the sierra, the cold terrain and air are overwhelming, almost. The music sound track is adequate and doesn't intrude as others have; the editing is just a tad too quick in a couple a places, but the photography is just stunning. Lancaster gives a solid performance as the Mexican constable, with just the right amount of lilt to his affected Mexican-English, and his tacit subservience to the bullying Americans; Cypher is excellent as the cruel and near-sociopathic trail boss and landowner; Susan Clark is competent, but not outstanding, as the kidnapped girlfriend; and a special mention for Barton Heyman as El Segundo who finally learns what true loyalty means. In sum, a stellar cast for a well-produced and very intelligent western.

If you like the western genre, in my opinion this one ranks in the top ten for that genre. So, if you haven't seen it yet, I give this one my highest recommendation.


Burt Lancaster(who I just thought was great, though he battled with the accent just a bit..a minor squabble)portrays Bob Valdez, a former Apache hunter for the Calvary now a constable who accidentally shoots an innocent black man claimed to have murdered the husband of Gay Erin(the beautiful redheaded Susan Clark). Gay's lover is Frank Tanner(Jon Cypher), the leader of a band of cutthroats who lead the crusade to take out the black man who was mistaken for being the one who killed Gay's husband. Valdez tried to smooth things over by consulting with the black man, but hothead RL Davis(Richard Jordan..a bucketful of energy and spunk)open fires before the constable to get the honest proof of the victim's innocence. Valdez ends up killing the innocent man and desires all who fingered him to pay for the man's pregnant squaw to have passage home. This is an insult to Frank who is a racist pig who loathes the sight of "greaser" Valdez. When Valdez persists, in kindness and gentle-care, Frank to pay $100, he is is attacked and roped to a wooden cross..they send him into the desert this way to perish. RL Davis is sent on his way when he is told by Frank that he couldn't shoot straight. RL, in his only moment of kindness in the film, releases Valdez from his ropes after an incident when Bob tried to break the wood roped to his arms. After being lent help and rest by his friend, Valdez will seek revenge for what Frank and his cronies did to him. What Frank and co. doesn't know is that Valdez is a great shot and smart tactician. He knows the mountains and is a wily problem for Frank to solve. Still Valdez has a problem when RL tells Frank of Bob's friend's helping him and this act of betrayal proves once and for all that RL is a greedy lowlife simply desiring to be one of the guys. Still Frank will continue to underestimate Valdez who knows the entire country all too well. Before it's over, Frank will, without a doubt, know that..Valdez is coming. The film is a blast to watch. It's one of those vendetta entertainments that often frequent the multiplexes in the 60's and 70's when the rules, thanks in large part to Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch", were starting to be broken. We were actually seeing the men act and talk the way they did in those days. The mean behavior exhibited by crooked men who lived for wealth and prestige. In this film Frank seems to be one mean sonofabitch and finds that he is slowly losing his men one by one to a superior enemy he misjudged because of different skin color. He automatically looked at him as a weak peasant instead of a great gunfighter and that theme works greatly here in this short and satisfying western.


Gritty, well written movie. For some reason, friends that are fans of both Burt Lancaster and/or westerns have not seen this movie. The action is taut. The supporting cast is very good.

Burt Lancaster's Valdez attempts an act of compassion and in return is brutally beaten. He survives, begins to dole out his own justice and slowly each of his antagonists (and his main nemesis' girlfriend) begin to respect and admire this older man's inner morality, courage and prowess. It's a classic understated performance.

There is one scene that I always remember. Valdez has successfully kept his pursuers at bay with his long range Sharps rifle. One of the men giving chase catches up with him and seeing the rifle (and having seen his compadres picked off with it) asks, "Did you hunt buffalo?" Valdez responds, "No, Apache...before I knew better."


The review is deserved - possibly the BEST western I have ever seen - certainly one of the best movies ever for me; the closure in the final seconds is an act of creative courage that should shine on the director's head for ever - I walked out with my girlfriend of the time (no artistic slouch herself) shaking heads and muttering "they can't really finish it like that, can they?" I knew then that I would seldom see such a bold stroke; Lancaster shows what he is really made of when the glossy facade is dropped. Just been TV screened and I'm blown away once more - 35 years later!! The sheer moral vacuum of Tanner is a depiction of the worst that can happen when location and money allow someone to construct a "reliaty" founded on self-image - kill a man so that no-one will have cause to wonder if I killed my lover's husband to grab her - I don't need to kill someone to take his woman - and a life is a small price to pay to make that clear. The distancing of his henchmen is so vividly and quietly a thing of manhood's measure in Spanish terms that it quivers in the air on the the mesa above the plains and the leaching of colour is a pure masterpiece of mood that takes some seconds to notice happening


i re watched this film last noc, for the umpteenth time, and it is better than i recalled. i would have to put it in my top five westerns. it is that good. i can't write a technical review; it's all about the emotion for me. a couple of folks have done what i would call technical reviews, and they are spot on. my sole purpose here is to say that this film is about dignity in a way that rarely does a film achieve. it is not, as some claim, a spaghetti western - they are visually confused, i think. it is a spare, lean film that speaks to individual human dignity. yes, it does have racial overtones, but it goes far beyond those limits. the film is absolutely universal in its compelling portrait - in a way i think it is more like a samurai film; it speaks to bushido, to honor and duty. no one ever did elmore leonard a greater service on screen. i simply can find no fault with any of the cast, writers or director. don e.


Burt Lancaster is always great, but this is one of my favourites. Lancaster as Valdez can best be described as Jesus with a rifle. He kills the bandits only because they continue to refuse his small request for an Indian woman who has lost her husband (I think he is killed by the bandits).

Great, spiritually moving, film.


At the summary states, this film truly made an unusual casting decision by casting Burt Lancaster as a Hispanic man. At first, this made me groan, but after a short time I realized that he did a pretty good job with the accent and there are many light-skinned Mexicans, so it wasn't too hard to believe this. The only negative about this is that the film is in many ways about race prejudice and you wonder if maybe casting an Anglo in such a role that it might be undermining the central message. Regardless, the film is several notches above the usual Western.

It begins in the Old West with sheriff Lancaster being called in to arrest a man holed up in a shack with his odd woman. The man inside is killed by Lancaster and then it's discovered that the man was NOT the wanted man, but totally innocent. Lancaster feels bad about this and tries to take up a collection to help the lady but no one seems to care. In particular, the rich land owner who insisted the guy in the shack WAS guilty felt no compunction to help at all. This angered Lancaster, but the rich guy said that he could care less since the dead man was Black.

The rest of the film consists of Lancaster spending the rest of the movie trying to force the rich guy to contribute his share. However, the rich guy responds by having Lancaster beaten and humiliated--and in the process unleashing retribution from Lancaster, who begins killing off the land owner's posse as they chase him across the Southwest.

Despite the simplicity of the plot, the film never got dull nor did it seem overly preachy. Also, the film ended very well, though I don't want to spoil anything by saying more about it. An intelligently written script, good acting and direction make this film a winner.


Adapted from the famous novel by Elmore Leonard. Burt Lancaster made three westerns all in a row. 'Valdez is Coming' was the first, then 'The Lawman' (which i have not seen) and of course the mighty 'Ulzana's Raid'. Here he plays a softly spoken (Mexican) constable, who is set up to kill an innocent man. Burt Lancaster shows he is an actor of such quality and class plus almost perfect as the quiet man, on a mission for bloody revenge. 'Valdez' is such an unusual western and only someone of Lancaster's pedigree could have played the part of Bob Valdez and do it justice. This is a very well respected movie and was directed with a deft touch by Edwin Sherrin. A must for any serious western fan.


An incident involving a black man who is holed up in a shack with his native American woman escalates after the man is killed by the town constable, a Mexican who had served in the US Cavalry chasing Apaches. Thus opens the film and sets the stage for the story of Valdez, the constable, who after killing the innocent man tries to set up a collection for his woman and runs into violent reaction from the wealthy, racist white rancher who wanted the man killed in the first place, and who runs roughshod over his own men, the Mexicans who hired out to him. The black man, the Native American woman, the Mexicans, the Anglos, and then the rancher's not so faithful mistress, give this movie a lot of great subplots to think about, but the central story of Valdez first asking and then demanding money for the dead man's woman is simple yet effective as it draws out into chases and ambushes while revealing the characters for who they really are.


This film is for people who like character and who like to think. Burt Lancaster's Valdez (beautifully underplayed) tries hard to do the right thing, but racism from a cold, cowardly Jon Cypher and practically every other white person forces him to get justice the hard way. I would not want to be the one in Bob Valdez's way or in his gun sites. I would be pretty happy, though, if Valdez had blown off R L Davis's (Richard Jordan) head, because he is one slimy little creep of a coward who richly deserved it. The ending is disappointing if you want to watch the film and forget about it, terrific if you want to keep thinking about it like I did. Got to watch this one again.


I have watched this movie many times and enjoy it very much. It has great action, good acting, a superb plot, and a satisfying ending. Burt Lancaster is fantastic and show's why he is and was a superstar. This western is gritty, tough, bloody, and believable. Some movies should only be seen once, some such as this one, many times. This is not a spaghetti western!!! I think that spaghetti westerns have been way overrated. This western surpasses most if not all of the spaghetti's. Why you ask! I think Spaghetti westerns lack believability, you know the good guy is never gonna die, while in this show the good guy takes a beating and loses at the end but wins as well. Great unexpected ending!


I agree with most of the comments already posted: it's a good Western, with Mexican Lancaster starting off as apparently almost servile in front of the Yankee Tanner, but then showing he's made of steel. Whe he dons his old army uniform it's a bit like Clark Kent transforming into Superman.

The ending was a bit of a letdown, and criticisms already posted give a rough idea of what it was. I didn't find it very convincing, and I'm grateful to rrichr for pointing out that heavy-handed editing leading to the cutting of an earlier scene didn't help:

"Segundo has entered Tanner's parlor to inform him that a certain Bob Valdez desires an audience ... Tanner turns to Segundo and smirks, 'I don't know any BOBE Valdez', mocking Segundo's densely-accented English. For just an instant, just a blink, Segundo considers putting a .44 pill in Tanner and high-tailing it back to Mexico. Then he lets it go."

There aretimes, such as this one, when I think that those who edit films should be test-run before a small audience, if only to see how far deletions can be unsatisfactory.


I like everything with Burt Lancaster and Burt in a western is that much more enjoyable to me. If you like "Revenge" movies like "The Crow" or Death Wish" then you'll probably like this. It also has a great supporting cast which is mainly the "bad guys" and when they make Burt mad he makes them wish they didn't. Good shoot em up flick!


Another western with a message for all those who understand that money may buy all things in the world. Lancaster played the role of a Chicano town constable, not much respected in his county. Due to a mistake of others he killed a black person who had an Indian wife. Understanding that this Indian wife had nothing left to survive Valdez (Lancaster) tried to get some money for her. Everybody thought he was stupid man unable to defend himself. After several serious offenses against him, he decided to show his real face and started a fight against Mr Tanner and his gang. The end of the film showed that Mexicans (Chicanos) like to fight one against another and not a group vs one. The gang refused to go over Valdez, and his boss, Tanner, was compelled to face Valdez alone.


I would definitely rent this one before I seriously considered buying it. I had read some of Leonard Elmore's western stories and seen some of the movie's of his books that's why I wanted to see it. And off course I was familiar with Burt Lancaster (Birdman of Alcatraz), No comparison by the way. So I had some expectations of it might being pretty good. Well it just wasn't, Lancaster is trying to play a Mexican and is accent is down right comical. If he just would have used is own it might have made it a little better to swallow. As for the story it's about revenge, and one's honor, but it was just way to short and I thought the very ending was disappointing, no Gun fight or even a struggle. It wasn't a horrible movie just not a keeper in my opinion. Maybe you'll find it to be funny, when you watch a movie that's so bad that it's funny? 4 stars for effort


This movie changed my life forever. To see someone so beautiful, dignified, and unique, hidden behind a body and face that society considers ugly, made me realize how the body is a decaying pile of dust, but the soul is a breath-taking and uniquely formed indestructible diamond.

I believe that everyone should get a chance to see this film, for those of an open mind, and a caring soul, there is nothing else like it.

It also shows the detestable ways some people treat others. I felt at first pity for John Merrick, but then my feelings changed to admiration, as the film went on. John, in the film starts as a severely deformed mute figure being badly mistreated, as the story progresses, he becomes the hero. A bold and courageous man, standing against the evils of modern society.

Joseph (John) Merrick, was a man so one-of-a-kind, that someone else like him physically or emotionally will never appear again. His life should be taken as an example to everyone.

As in the film, John's mother says "Nothing will Die", Joseph Merrick will live on in the hearts and souls of everyone who has witnessed the story of his life.

My love goes to Joseph Merrick, where ever he may be.


I just watched this movie last night and i must say... it touched me in a way no other movie has... some of the scenes even brought me to tears, which has never happened to me before.... John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins are simple incredible, and this movie is just filled with unforgettable scenes....

but like some people have mentioned here before, it is an incredibly hard movie to watch, especially after you realize what a sweet, kind, smart and innocent man John Merrick was, it is often painful to watch the way he's treated by some people, and like Hopkins says after he sees him for the first time "I pray to god that he's an idiot", sadly, he is everything but that...

10/10, no question


David Lynch is a remarkable director and The Elephant Man is a remarkable film. Inspired by a true story in the streets of London during the Victorian Age, the film is based entirely around the life of John Merrick (John Hurt), an individual dubbed by his `owner' Bytes (Freddie Jones) and others as 'The Elephant Man' because of his hideous deformities. With this film, Lynch grasps his audience and stretches them to a new parallel of an emotionally capturing film. And what makes this so daunting and so intriguing is the fact that 'The Elephant Man' is a true story, no part of it is fictional. Anthony Hopkins plays Dr. Frederick Treves, the man who somewhat saves John from those who persecute him for being a freak, being a `monster.' A story of human triumph could never be so remarkable as that of The Elephant Man. Lynch takes The Elephant Man to a new level of technical aspiration with a dark, dank setting shot completely in black and white. This film is amazing and would undoubtedly be just okay any other way. The black and white adds to the story in a way that touches the audience much deeper and much more personal. Not to mention stunning performances and dialogue by all cast, `David Lynch's portrait of John 'The Elephant Man' Merrick stands as one of the best biographies on film.' Literary critic Leslie Fiedler maintains that freaks stir `both supernatural terror and natural sympathies' because they `challenge conventional boundaries between male and female, sexed and sexless, animal and human, large and small, self and other.' In this very interesting and moving film, we are challenged to clarify our values in regard to `very special people.' However, in one powerful scene of tension and curiosity, John Merrick screams out, `I am not an animal! I am a human being! I.am.a man!' This particular sequence, I believe, is incredible and it ties in with the whole focus of the film itself, human dignity and emotion. David Lynch is known for some pretty twisted films, and yet, The Elephant Man is not that twisted at all. Even though his audience views John Merrick as not the average person because of his medical condition, the story is cherished because of how it is put onto the big screen. Compared to his other films such as Blue Velvet and Eraserhead, The Elephant Man is more surreal in terms of what Lynch was going for. Lynch does a magnificent job in portraying his version of The Elephant Man, and many people along with critics alike agree. I can easily rate The Elephant Man with four stars because David Lynch deserves no less. The Elephant Man is a classic, a striking and devastating film depicting the account of John Merrick's search for a dignified and normal life. I would definitely recommend this film to those in search of a wonderful story about one man's conquest to a regular life. Dr. Treves' account with John not only presents him with respect and normalcy, but also takes him as far as an uplifting scene where upon John states `my life is full because I know I am loved.' With such an inspirational and true story, David Lynch puts on a film that should be loved by many, if not all.


There have been many films made dealing with an individual who's outer appearance is completely at odds with their inner character. Some of these films are quite good but this is by far and away the very best. This is probably one of the most perfect films ever made. It succeeds on every level. Visually it transports one into a dark, grey, industrial nightmare of a world. It's within this world that we come to discover true beauty. It lies within one hideously deformed, abused and unfortunate soul who is being kicked around in this hellish existence. The screenplay, acting, direction all come together to create this extraordinary viewing experience. You really feel like you get inside this man and his tortured existence. The ending is one of the most effective and completely engrossing I've ever seen. Rarely does a film find a way to leave us with such a sense of closure and lingering fascination. The thing that really makes this film truly great is it changes the way people see themselves, other people and the world. I can still remember the palpable air of silence and awe over the audience when leaving the theater both times I saw it on the big screen. There's a transforming quality about it. You only need to read the many other user comments to see how people were moved and changed by this film. If you haven't seen it, it's a must!


Man, this is a powerful and great movie. We are all moved different degrees by different things, but to witness sincerely nice people being treated cruelly always bothers me big- time....so this film is tough to watch in spots. Some scenes are just painful and depressing to view.

Whatever your sensitivity, the movie is very involving and hauntingly shown with eerie black-and-white photography. Eerie, and downright beautiful camera-work in here, so kudos to cinematographer Freddie Francis, one of the best in the business.

A young Anthony Hopkins is very likable and John Hurt is, well, someone you won't soon forget as John Merrick, "The Elephant Man."

This is an uplifting movie at times, too, not just a tear-jerker or horrific in showing man's cruelty to man. Be prepared for an emotional experience and an amazing story.


Between the surreal dystopia of Eraserhead and the artistic immobility of Dune, and before critics labeled him as the auteur of Weird America with permanent marker, David Lynch directed this strange but true story set in London, England during the late 1800's. Being one of only two films of his to be based on fact it is far less of a personal work than those generated by the director himself. Despite his sensibilities being contained in a more formal framework his unique aural and visual style (like the sound of blowing wind or the peculiar emphasis of the industrial machinery of the period)clearly comes across, although it's a far cry from the narrative conundrums that comprise Eraserhead, Lost Highway, or Mulholland Dr.

The year before this film was released Bernard Pomerance's play opened on Broadway. This film is not based upon the former work and the latter takes a dramatically divergent path with its namesake subject. One of the most substantial is Merrick's role in his adoptive society once his carnival career is truncated. Pomerance's tale is a tragic one showing us how Merrick becomes caught in the machinery of the repressive and hypocritical society that cultivates him, tempting him with the illusion of normality with the artificial world they erect around him, but ultimately imprisoning him within it. The film depicts Victorian society as a benevolent sanctuary for a man, who while given the props to model himself after the normality he aspires to, is never deceived into thinking he can achieve it beyond his imagination. Merrick's own realization of this is clear in a scene (hauntingly scored by composer John Morris)where he asks his caretaker Treeves if he can cure him. Treeves' reply is no. Merrick's response is of a man who knew the answer all along but still allows himself the indulgence to dream.

Treeves' struggles are similarly reduced. The closest he comes in the film to questioning his motives concerning Merrick is a brief scene where he asks his wife (and audience) if his seemingly charitable act of taking Merrick from his sideshow squalor was possibly something other than altruistic. Pomerance has Treeves questioning the artificial social fabric that's been woven around Merrick and his undeniable complicity in it. The screenwriters seem less concerned with tackling these Victorian dilemmas than focusing on the beauty in the beast theme. Considering Lynch's fascination with organic phenomena this focus seems much more up his alley. In his words Lynch has stated that the eponymous title character is "this beautiful soul trapped in this horrible body and that's what the whole film is about." Yes siree Bob.

Much less effective in the film is the role of the actress Madge Kendall who's really nothing more than a walk on by Anne Bancroft. There is some(even subtly sexual)awkwardness between Merrick and Kendall at the beginning of their meeting together but it ultimately winds up with a scene that feels patronizing towards Merrick and mawkish. It doesn't fit with the earlier tension and Kendall never becomes anything more than a well acted cameo. Much more effective is Merrick's ability to retain the power to disturb the bourgeois society that flocks to see him once he becomes that season's fashionable curiosity. His transformation into a gentrified version of his erstwhile sawdust and calliope music carnival persona still has the same effect on others. In one scene he is serving tea to a noticeably unnerved aristocratic couple who are guests of his. Their cups rattle against their saucers in barely restrained horror as he discusses his mother's beauty in the context of his own deformity. His cherished portrait of his mother becomes an eerily recurring visual motif. She remains a mysterious presence frozen in time. The conflation of Merrick and his mother recalls a line heard early in the film that "life is full of surprises."

Merrick's background remains equally enigmatic. The only glimpse we see of his past are some creepily abstract images during one of his nightmares. Even his beginnings are fictionalized as part of the sideshow spiel recited by his owner Bytes. Treeves' first view of the elephant man is in a private showing by Bytes. He is led down a dark corridor to a room where the terrible freak is kept concealed behind a curtain. Only the flames of a gas lamp illuminate the darkness. Bytes spins a tale of a terrifying encounter between woman and elephant while Treeves stares, mouth agape. The scene has a strange Lynchian spookiness about it.

The costume and production design authentically breathe life into the Victorian era while Freddie Francis' expressionistic monochrome adds both verisimilitude and a sense of an alternative world. These elements together with Lynch's use of both nightmarish and chimerical images, an other worldly atmosphere, pathos and sentiment, make the film a sort of Charles Dickens tale wrapped inside The Twilight Zone with the ethereal touch of a haunting dream. The past a la Lynch.


this is a brilliantly done film. it is quite raw and blunt about its subject matter, however, so it should not be viewed for "entertainment" purposes, thought he story is inherently intriguing. we must just sit and watch in curiousity and amazement, but in concurrence with extreme sorrow, as we are shown the brutality that john merrick must face as his reality. a smile from another human being, or even a pleasant greeting (which is something that we all take for granted), is treated by this man as the highest form of complimentary behavior possible.

one of the best films that i have ever seen. it wouldnt be called a top 25 of all-time film by the public (though i may place it there), however, based solely on the fact that it, as i mentioned earlier, is lacking in terms of typical "entertainment" value. even though you will certainly be immersed the entire way through. ah, who knows! im not expressing myself very well. make it a priority to see this film. enjoy

absolutely amazing and memorable - 10/10


Hi all,

I saw this movie for the 1st time on 5th December 1999. I was about to go to sleep as it was about 00-40 in the morning and I flicked over to the movie and even though I was falling asleep as I flicked over to it, within five minutes I was wide awake and totally captivated.

Everyone knows the tale of John Merrick, it is so sad and painful to watch and see a man with above average intelligence trapped by his physical deformity and to be physically and mentally abused and tortured for a few meagre pence.

I thought Sir John Gieulgud(?) and Sir Anthony Hopkins were both excellent in their respective roles. John Hurt did Merrick proud.

I had a bit more than water in my eye on 4 occasions during this movie and not ashamed to admit it either. This is the 1st movie to make me cry.

On the Kleenex scale - Titanic is 1 and this is 10!

A movie not to be missed but be prepared to be disgusted and upset by the story told.

ThePM


Nobody but Lynch could have directed this movie and made it the masterpiece that it is. Where other people would have gone for fake sentimentality and/or gruesome imagery; Lynch just presents the story how it is. The film is never gratuitous, and that is much to it's credit. It is, however, utterly repulsive. The black and white cinematography enforces this. There is nothing pleasant about The Elephant Man; it is as ugly as it's title character, and that is the way that this story needs to be. On the surface, it is ugly and repulsive; but just like it's title character; the movie has a hidden depth that is ultimately touching and heartbreaking. The movie sets itself up for this early on; the scene in which the Elephant Man is introduced is most of the most gut wrenching ever committed to film. As the doctor (Anthony Hopkins) sees the freak rise up and realises the extent of his deformity...a tear slowly form and rolls down his cheek. From this, you can see the pity that he feels for this man who has drawn the lot of a lowly circus freak; just from that one shot of a tear, David Lynch shows us the sorrow and the pity, and that's all he needs. Where some directors would have piled the sentimentality on, David Lynch is economic; that's all it needs, so that's all it gets. And that is the mark of a great director. Something that David Lynch most certainly is.

The film is also ironic. Aside from it's visuals that link to the title character, it also observes how society is not unlike a circus. The good doctor has taken the Elephant Man away from the glares and the scowls of the circus audience, the exploitation that he's had to face, and put him a kinder and more loving environment; only now the scowls and stares come not from the circus audience, but from society's upper crust, who want to exploit the Elephant Man themselves for their own selfish reasons - to impress their friends. The Elephant Man is not merely a horror story of the life of a very unfortunate man; it's a story of love, a story of acceptance. Despite being taken from one circus to another, the Elephant Man is happier and more fulfilled than he ever was; he doesn't care about the looks and the exploitation, he merely wants to be loved. By 'normal' people, this is taken for granted; but The Elephant Man shows us that love and acceptance isn't something that can be taken for granted. As one doctor notes in the film, "we can't imagine the life he's had". We can't.

David Lynch also succeeds in making voyeurs out of his audience. Just like the various audiences in the film; we too want to see the Elephant Man, and yet are utterly repulsed and disgusted by him. With this, David Lynch makes a mockery out of today's society, without ever making a mockery out of the character upon which this film is based. The Elephant Man himself is a perfectly balanced example of how pathos can be achieved. Not only is this man seen as a monster, but his character is pathetic also. With The Elephant Man, Lynch is saying to the world that it is society that is the monster, not the freaks that live within it.

To put it simply: David Lynch has taken a story that could have easily been told simply and expanded it to take in themes that are outside of the central premise. This small story of one unfortunate man has been moulded into a striking comment on society. And all in all; it's a masterpiece.


This is a beautiful film. Touching, elegant and moving and with a strong moral message, a message which does not beat you over the head but instead gently pushes at your sensibilities. This should be a film that everyone should be forced to watch, especially the most shallow and judgmental demographic, young women. They have made me feel like an Elphant Man myself on many occasions, which is why I had a special empathy with the main character.

One of the best aspects of the film is the setting. It is absolutely perfect in recreating late 1800's London, a fantastic attention to detail. Shooting in B&W greatly enhances this.

The acting is also superb, especially from Hopkins and Hurt. I think this is Hopkin's best performance and most memorable, much better than Hannibal Lector, which he has unfortunately become typecast as. It's much better to see him as this kind, sympathetic character than Lector. Also fantastic characters were mother's Head and Carr Gomm. I absolutely love the dialog in this film, especially everything Carr Gomm says. He has a gentlemanly charm that we won't ever see again in the world, even in Merry Old England, and that is so unfortunate. Of course the evil characters, Bytes and the guard, were also memorable.

There is really only one thing I didn't think was necessary in this movie. The strange montages of elephants and smoke and stars just didn't seem to belong in what was otherwise such a perfectly set, directed and acted film. It's a very minor criticism though.

The ending is sad yet sobering. The story, though embellished somewhat from the truth, still carries an important message of simple humanity and dignity.


This film is one of the greatest of all time. Hurt and Hopkins are excellent and the great Wendy Hillier and John Geilgud put in superb turns. The script is at once energetic,emotional and perfectly paced. Lynch's direction is also awesome. why did this film not win best picture? it is a trillion times better than ordinary people. Well done to Mel Brooks for producing such a beautiful film and having faith in the then relatively unheard of David Lynch. To me this is a crowning point in the careers of of Brooks,Lynch,Hurt, Hopkins,Hillier,Geilgud,Bancroft. A pure unadulterated masterpiece Brilliant


I truly enjoyed this film. I've always been told that I'm fairly mature for my age - I'm not even old enough to drive yet & I'm already learning & respecting morals. In this case, 'Don't judge a book by its cover'.

Some parts made me very angry - when Merrick was mistreated & exploited like an animal that he certainly wasn't. He didn't deserve the treatment that people like Bytes & the person working at the hospital gave him.

I forgot that I was watching a movie for a while & became incredibly angered far more times than once.

I loved the movie a lot, but it made me incredibly inraged that people that treated John like that can actually exist.


I'm not writing any more plaudits for this movie, for most everything has been said about it before. Even a quarter century later, I weep everytime I watch Mr. Hurt and Mr. Hopkins in their roles. The great humanity of David Lynch and the producers has left us with an equally frightening and endearing vision of Mr. Merick.

Sadly, there will always be elephant men, as long as ignorance and the impulse for destruction rule men and their domain.


With a crowd bearing down on him, the tortured cry of The Elephant Man (John Hurt) rings out: "I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being!"

Set in Victorian England, it looks into the Freak Show trade that was popular then, through one particular gentleman, grossly and uniquely deformed, by the name of John Merrick (The Elephant Man), and is based on the memoirs of the doctor played by Anthony Hopkins, Dr Frederick Treves. It shows the humanity of poor Mr Merrick and condemns the society that exploited him for its own monetary gain and sick pleasure.

The story itself is a difficult one, and i'm surprised that any producer, even someone as offbeat as Mel Brooks, would have agreed to pour money into this idea. It has none of the classic elements of the commercial formula for making a movie that will make money: it has no love story, it has no sex, and, without spoiling too much, it is quite a tragic, unhappy story.

The pervasive tragedy of the story is that John Merrick is an intelligent man, trapped inside this hideously misshapen body. Hanging over the head of the story is also the fact that nothing can be done for Mr Merrick. And the metaphor running throughout is that Merrick is no elephant man at all, he's just as human as the rest of us, but this exhibitionist, heartless society whipped him and made him dance around for them like an elephant in a circus tent.

"Luck, my friend," A circus dwarf says to the elephant man at one point in the story, "and who needs it but we."

It is a story of immense sensitivity and humanity, and one the likes of which you won't see anywhere else. Its definitely not for the weak-hearted or depressed. Its often devastatingly difficult to watch (mainly in one or two scenes), most of this story is wildly compelling and human drama due to the immense talents of Lynch and Hopkins in particular. There are certainly moments of reprieve - all is not black.

Its certainly a beautiful movie - every frame is perfection. Gorgeous black and white cinematography give this subject the class it deserves. A wonderful score by John Morris helps give it a haunting beauty. It is directed with superb classical storytelling, illustrated by Lynchian brushstrokes: expressionistic dream sequences and trademark Lynchian soundtrack. David Lynch should be very proud of this early effort. It is a marvellous film. The sensitivity of the construction, and its classic perfection, are the work of a master.

But it is hard to say what this movie would be without Anthony Hopkins. It is a topic that easily could have fallen into the trap of the society it depicts, of exploiting freaks for the petty thrill of exhibitionism. But whatever credit for this that does not go to Lynch, must go to Hopkins. His sincere delivery, in one of the most genuine performances i've ever seen, are a major factor in our believing this story really happened (which it did), and taking it seriously (which we do).

5 stars.


The Elephant Man is a classic film. Its great acting stands out extremely, David Lynch's direction is a marvel, too bad he didn't create more fascinating pieces. John Hurt's wonderful performance in the title role is indescribable. Anthony Hopkins' classy acting fits perfectly with the character, along with talents of Anne Bancroft, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller and Hannah Gordon.

I was touched by the film because of its storyline of drama, brilliant script, acting and music. The sorrowful and suffering life of John Merrick and the grand end of his life brings out the sadness in us all. At the end of the film, the music, Barber's 'Adagio for Strings', is a masterpiece, it fitted perfectly into the upsetting grand finale. I mostly enjoy 'true' films, when the plot actually happened.

Overall, I suggest the film to be one of the best in movie history. It brought out the best in John Hurt, and the joy within us. With its outstanding cast, subtle and touching script, The Elephant Man proves to be David Lynch's finest.


This film is a genuinely moving experience John hurt gives a performance more worthy of an academy award for best actor then any I can remember. I saw this film late one night. I left the TV on expecting to fall asleep. This movie caused me a sleepless night. John Merricks endearing qualities mixed with the fact it is shot entirely in black and white, a taboo for modern day cinema other then low budget films caused me to have real tears in my eyes. Even this film to me signified the way films should be. I forgot it was a film. A must see film which will teach more about tolerance and understanding to people then any documentary or educational lesson. A truly masterful effort by David lynch.


i do not know why i have not posted a comment on this film before now. anyway better late than never. i have seen the elephant man over a dozen times and each time i see and feel more. john hurt and anthony hopkins are not my favourite actors, and to be honest hopkins was always brilliant till he got an oscar for one of his worst performances in the very bad silence of the lambs, here however he is perfect, as is the rest of the cast. the mood the music the look, all perfect. this film should be shown in schools all the time so that kids can grow up knowing what compassion, courage and true love are. we would be a much better society and it would be a much better world if we could live with even a fraction of the spirituality and love that is in this film


I just finished watching this film and it is beyond words. I am a devout Lynch lover and bought this film the other night, willing to give it a shot. It swept me off of my feet and left me in tears. It's so moving and almost gives you a hope for humanity. This movie will appeal to anyone who does not have a heart made of stone.


I've been wanting to watch this film for quite a while now. I finally got the opertunity and i have to say its a work of art. It will make you cry you and keep you doing so for the whole movie. It was definately worth the time, its a must see. Everyone should watch this movie.


Surely Lynch's best movie. I was lucky enough to catch this on cable the other night, what a supreme joy. Wonderful art direction and remarkable performances all round. The dark Dickensian sets of London are hauntingly beautiful. Hunt this one down, highly recommended.


One of the rare times director David Lynch was a hired hand was for this beautiful true tale of John Merrick. With its stunning black and white photography, great attention to detail, bleak but beautiful look at Victorian squalor, amazing make-up work, and wonderful performances from John Hurt as the titular victim of society and Hopkins as the doctor who eventually helps him, this is Lynch at the top of his game. All the pieces come together here for one of the most bittersweet true stories ever put to film. Anybody who thinks Lynch can't make a coherent and meaningful film need only look at this. Horror and beauty are beautifully contrasted here and Lynch gets to the roots of our humanity. One of the view films that made me cry. A masterpiece.


David Lynch over all is not a bad director, this movie proves it. I just wish he would make more movies like this than movies like Mulholland Dr. If you wish to see a David Lynch movie that is going to make you feel bad, angry, and all sorts of emotions then watch this one. If you wish to waste your time watch his other movies....

 **** out of *****


Merrick was a great man. His story makes a great movie, Acted wonderfully. It will lift you to the heights of what we can do with our lives when we get outside of ourselves and invest ourselves in other people.


Words can't describe my feelings after I saw the story of Elephant Man - I cried almost the whole movie. As I know the whole story is true - there is almost no fiction in it (as in Braveheart for example). John Merrick is simply beautiful. This is the most touching story ever filmed and it changed me a lot. I highly recommend it to everyone. 10 out of 10.


The movie delat with a delicate topic. It could have been hokey or over-sentimentalatized, but was smooth, deft, well done. I was quite moved by it. Characters were all very real, believable. Who are the 'elephant men' today?


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a film unlike any I've ever seen and probably ever will. A true epic that left me utterly speechless. It accomplished so much through such simplicity. Everything was top notch from the elegant directing to the subtly wonderful performances down to the magical score. The film demands you to feel not only for the death we witness, but for the incredible life we discover. It prays on the obvious morality issues we all deal with but also dangles the idea in front of us that everyone goes through the same joys and grievances, just not in the same way. This is a momentous tale that deserves nothing less than the title of brilliance.

This visually and emotionally rich movie recalls the life of a very peculiar man born in the early 20th century who ages backwards. His tale unfolds through a diary read by the daughter of his love, Daisy. Throughout life he goes through the same things we do, growing up and eventually growing old. He's a thoughtful observer, discovering life from all different angles. But it is not his life that makes him unique. His love is what makes him special. He spends a lifetime trying to understand how his love for Daisy works and still only gets a few incredible years really loving her. As their lives tell us, the years of frustration and hardship are all worth it if only for a few moments of happiness.

The direction in the film is almost flawless. Hopefully, Benjamin Button will garner David Fincher the recognition he deserves. He winds this clock so well and with such grace that the movie has this undeniable flow that is enjoyable from start to finish. At nearly 3 hours, there is not a minute wasted. Every shot is jaw dropping and while some will find issue with the time, it is used wisely.

The acting is also a thing of wonder. This is by far Brad Pitt's best performance. He is so believable and realistic throughout. His nuances are spot on and despite the heavy use of make-up and CGI used to portray his character, it is Pitt who makes Benjamin that much more curious.

I left the theater astonished that some one could review this movie badly. It is an extremely graceful depiction of life, love, and the things we lose. After so much anticipation I was certainly not disappointed. This movie is probably not for everyone though. It's not your average drama that spoon feeds it's audience their emotions. It is something of awe and astonishment, an absolute gem. What makes our lives memorable are the moments we never seem to grasp long enough before letting go. Life in itself is indeed very, very curious and Benjamin Button is no less of a wonder.


Possibly the most anticipated winter film of 2008, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a curious film indeed. It's got an intriguing and completely absorbing story, as well as my favorite director, David Fincher, on the top of his game. With "Button", Fincher cements his place as one of the best directors alive, as his film is nothing short of magical, mesmerizing, riveting, ground breaking, and ultimately, timeless.

When I first heard about this movie, I had to wonder...how was Fincher, the guy responsible for realistic, gripping, crime thrillers like Seven and Zodiac going to pull off the fantasy film of a lifetime? Armed with a massive budget, Fincher uses everything a director can use to craft the most charming and technically brilliant film of the year. It's a film to be cherished for ages.

"Button" has struck me like this because a recurring theme in the film is that age is only a number, and that we as people can choose what we do with our lives, no matter what our age is. What better way to tell this message than through a story where the titular character ages backwards, and must experience life in such a way? How does one fall in love when he could one day appear young enough to be his spouse's child? How does a 5 year old play with the neighborhood children when he's confined to a wheelchair stricken with old age? Fincher's epic explores our choices, lives, and the timelessness of life itself.

Brad Pitt plays the title role of Benjamin Button with a certain air of likability like he always does. While I felt he did a good job with the part, he didn't have to do much...Benjamin, fittingly, is a rather quiet character (I'd be willing to bet he narrates more than he actually talks in the film). In terms of acting, the film belongs to the ladies, Cate Blanchett and Taraji P. Henson in particular. Though Blanchett may seem overrated to some, there's no denying her unrivaled talent at playing a character as complex and deep as Daisy, and she pulls it off with ease and charisma. Taraji P. Henson will warm your heart as Benjamin's mother, as she's humorous, warm, and loving, so loving that I felt as if she was my mother.

The main complexity behind the film, especially with a director like David Fincher, is keeping the film grounded in reality, while maintaining the undeniable magic within. As a director, you don't want to lose too much of either quality, instead keeping a healthy balance of the two. I feel that Fincher accomplished this perfectly. He is mainly helped out by a magical score, and absolutely stunning cinematography (which immediately identified it as a Fincher film, because of the darkness and lighting of it).

Despite the wonder and awe of the film, mixed with the realism that Fincher always brings, the true allure of the film is not just Benjamin's aging problem, but the romance between Benjamin and Daisy, which is beautiful. Two people in love, regardless of age, time, or place. It's one of the most compelling romances of the year.

"Button" is also the most technically well made movie of 2008, as the true standouts are the Visual Effects and the Makeup, both of which are Oscar worthy. Pitt plays the character at almost every age, but it's almost impossible to tell when the CGI is being used on him. You know it's there, obviously, but you can't tell it's being used. When the transition is just smooth enough for the Visual Effects to be retired, but just rough enough to use makeup, it's absolutely perfect. If you've ever wanted to see Brad Pitt look 20 again, look no further, as the effects that make our actors young again (the same goes for Blanchett) are just as stunning as those that make them older.

Despite a long runtime, the film never drags. If I had to point out one thing I would've liked to have seen a little more of, it would've been more of Benjamin as a little kid, as I felt that was rushed (for those who don't know what I mean, I mean the last parts of the film when he's old, but his body is young). This doesn't hurt the film in any way, as it's just my wishful thinking.

I know I've used the word 'magical' a lot in this review, and don't think it's on accident. If I could pick one word to describe David Fincher's masterpiece, that would be it: magical. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is a captivating piece of art that shouldn't be missed by anyone.


Before seeing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I wondered how I would react to the story of a man who is born old and gets younger as he grows up. Of all of the stories I have come across, this is by far the most bizarre and intriguing. If i had to pick someone to bring this story to the screen I do no think David Fincher would have been my first choice.

How wrong I would have been. This film is by far one of the best if not the best of 2008. Fincher's direction is flawless! The film from start to finish does not let up. There are moments of joy and ecstasy followed by sorrow and understanding. Brad Pitt stars as Benjamin, a boy born an old man who must live his life in reverse. His friend from childhood, Daisy, is played by Cate Blanchett. The story is narrated from Benjamin's point of view with some particular highlights from Daisy.

The cast does nothing wrong. Pitt leads with Blanchett and a strong performance from Taraji P. Henson as Benjamin's surrogate mother Queenie, the only person in the world who seems to understand and truly love him from the start. Other cameos along the way bring a large array of characters, including Tilda Swinton, one of Benjamin's early love interests.

The film spans from the end of World War I to the the arrival of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The transitions from life stage to life stage and decade to decade are seamless. Fincher does a tremendous job at maintaining a steady flow of action and dialogue. There is not a dull moment in the film. The cinematography is superb and couples nicely with Fincher's style of accentuating certain colors to enhance a mood or moment.

There really is nothing wrong with this film. Even with a runtime of about 160 minutes, time just flies by, much like it does for Benjamin, only we are going forward. This is a tender and meaningful film you do not want to wish.


"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" would seem to have everything going for it - major stars, an enormous budget, and a conceit that can't be beat. However, in the end it's that very conceit that hamstrings an otherwise wondrous piece of movie-making.

Fincher's characters tend to be psychos, paranoiacs, obsessives, some of whom struggle vainly against the darkness in their own souls, but many others who have embraced it. Benjamin Button is none of the above, and that's perhaps his problem. Button, born "under unusual circumstances" in 1918 New Orleans, spends his early life literally surrounded by death, raised, as he is, by an orderly in a home for the elderly. As a prematurely old man himself (an effect achieved by fantastic MOCAP work from Pitt), perhaps it's not surprising that as he grows into a body with which he may truly engage the world, he is more content to observe appreciably.

Now, this may be true to the spirit of the character, but unfortunately for Fincher and his screenwriter, Eric Roth, it doesn't make for very interesting cinema. At a recent screening, Roth referred to Button's character as the "anti-Gump", a classification that seemed both apt and problematic. This film will certainly earn comparisons to Robert Zemeckis' modern classic(also written by Roth), but where that film had a truly fascinating central character, who experienced as many mistakes and tragedies as victories and happiness, Fincher and Roth's protagonist is a cipher. There's a telling sequence around the middle of the film, where Button, by now a merchant seaman holed up in a dingy hotel in Murmansk, strikes up a relationship with a bored wife of a minor British official (Tilda Swinton). Unable to sleep, they meet each night for tea and good conversation (and later, sex). But instead of letting us hear what those conversations are about, he simply creates a montage, set to music, of various meetings fading into one another. By the time Swinton's character departs the film, we know next to nothing new about Benjamin other than that he has trouble sleeping and likes hot tea. The fact is that even Swinton's character, on screen for perhaps fifteen minutes, is more engaging. It's a frustrating glimpse of what might have been, had the filmmakers chosen to put the character before the gimmick, instead of the other way around.

Which brings us to Cate Blanchett. As Daisy, whom Benjamin meets as a young girl and who grows into a luminously beautiful and troubled ballet dancer, Blanchett shines as brightly as she ever has on screen. Unlike Benjamin, Daisy is not content to simply accept whatever life throws her way - she has dreams and attempts to act on them, and does her best to lead a normal, interesting life. Benjamin, passive as always, must quietly observe as she grows out of the playmate of his "youth" and into a somewhat headstrong woman who nonetheless possessed of enormous potential. His loyalty pays off, though, when circumstances bring them together again at a time when they both happen to be the same age - a fleeting moment, and one they will cherish. But again, the relationship between couple and audience is one-sided, because while we can see why Daisy would wish to return to the rock-steady loyalty of Benjamin, it's unclear what he feels about her other than a regard (she's certainly lovely enough). We are told in rather soggy voice-over narration (spread throughout the film) that Daisy is "the most beautiful person I'd ever seen", but that's all we'll get.

And so it goes, for nearly three hours. We cut frequently, and irritatingly, back to a modern-day hospital in New Orleans, where a dying Daisy asks her daughter (Julia Ormond) to read to her from Benjamin's diary as Hurricane Katrina pounds on the windows. There's something being said in these scenes about regret and the passage of time, but the appealing Ormond's character is one-note, and Blanchett seems nearly suffocated under pounds of old age makeup. It's from this diary whence springs Benjamin's narration, but, as Mr. Roth pointed out, Gump this ain't. Suffice it to say that the budget is up there on screen as we go on this strange trip through the twentieth century with Brad Pitt as our guide. A possibly unintentional (I doubt it) laugh arises mid-film when Benjamin finally reaches something around Pitt's own age. He strides into a garage in the mid-50's, decked out in leather jacket and shades, and whips a tarp off a motorcycle, on which he speeds out to the harbor to do some bare-chested sailing on a boat he builds himself (the shades remain on his head). It's a knowing wink to the wish-fulfillment of the casting - who wouldn't want their old crotchety husband to get younger and younger until they looked like Brad Pitt? - and a clever way to underscore the underlying tragedy of the situation. Sure, he looks like Brad Pitt in "Fight Club", "Se7en", "Thelma & Louise", but eventually he's going to look like Brad Pitt in "Cutting Class", and then Brad Pitt in seventh grade, and finally Brad Pitt as a toddler, and that's not so sexy.

Pitt does a fine job. It's a pity that Fincher, who has used him to such great effect twice before, didn't let him cut loose. Instead this is his most low-key performance since Meet Joe Black, in which he played Death, who was really just a nice young man curious about the world. Come to think of it, that's pretty much all that Benjamin Button is, and, if nothing else, he knows more about death than just about anybody around. Too bad that a film that means to affirm life turns out to be rather lifeless.


The disappointment I feel is perhaps more for David Fincher's career than this film. Everything on the surface of 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' appears beautiful - the cinematography, the special effects, the make-up, the cast... everything is about eye candy. It is sweet but like sweets containing high glucose corn syrup, it leaves one irritable and certainly dissatisfied.

I find with most critiques of mainstream, big budget films those who fall into two camps - those taken in by the hype, by the surface of the film and those who feel and understand the film, aware of its flaws. It is the same with bestseller novels.

First of all, the concept of this film was unique. Let us at least take notice of F.Scott Fitzgerald who may or may not have stolen the idea/material from his wife Zelda (whom many scholars believe was the true genius and not her husband). Origins aside, the film has all the trimmings of previous work.

There are some people who are vehement about this being 'not Forest Gump'. I would stress the similarities between the two films and the fact Eric Roth wrote both.

Let us take note of the obvious:

Atypical hero: Forest Gump/Benjamin Button Love Interest Jenny/Daisy Mother (with similar accents) Hero's 'war involvement' Vietnam War/WWII Setting American South/American South Leitmotif Feather/Hummingbird

There are others but those are the most obvious. Let us also remind ourselves both films are narrated by the hero who both happen to have interesting and 'profound' observations about life and their lives.

But if it were simply a matter of being Forest Gump, then I would still have high praise for Benjamin Button. Not so. The majority of this film remains on the surface. Despite all the observations, despite the epic sweep of events that pass through the narrative, we as an audience are rarely allowed to go deeper. Again, the film was based on a unique idea but without the human psychology, without more background on several characters, I found it difficult to relate to any of these characters.

Benjamin Button. He is born old, he grows young. That's all we really know. He lives with old people, he learns to play the piano, he leaves home, he travels, he sees the world. Most of the narrative is about places and meeting people, rarely about being involved with others, what it means or feels like to relate to a world that sees him as old. He is an outsider. How does this feel? We don't really know as an audience. The film is entirely experiential, rarely psychological.

Daisy. We know she had a grandmother. We knows she loves to dance. But little else. What motivated her to dance, why did she love dancing? We don't know. And of course, why of all things did she not have a relationship with her daughter?

The relationship: A man returns from war. He meets a woman that used to be the girl he loved. The woman wants to seduce him. She attempts. He steps back. When this occurs in the film, we don't really understand the reasoning nor the purpose of the scene. Daisy is in town one day. Her and Benjamin go out together. Why is sex so important to Daisy? And why do we have to watch the two characters go back and forth before they land up together? When he visits her in New York, she is immature, a school girl attempting to get him jealous. Yet he is still attracted to her.

There are so many other questions I have about this film and so many things that simply do not make sense. The main one that comes to mind: if you are a dancer, someone who is professionally trained, why in any circumstances would you even think of dancing on a crowded street? The scene in which Daisy was hit by a car was for too unbelievable. She is first held up by a friend with a broken shoe lace. Daisy remains behind. In such a situation, when you have to wait for someone, the last thing you want to do is fool around after waiting. The scene felt convoluted and dumb - not tragic.

The montage in which Daisy and Benjamin find themselves together plays out like all other young lover clichés - they travel together, they make love, they buy a love, they make love in their home, they paint their home (there is a brief, albeit clichéd 'lovers painting the wall' scene ... yawn...seen it...). I didn't find this film to be magical, just a mosaic of previous formulas and scenarios. Benjamin 'youthens', he leaves her. He comes back later. Throughout the entire film, the audience really doesn't know or understand or get a sense of what it means to grow 'young' nor what kind of effect it might have on others.

I felt very tired after watching this picture. The first half was not bad. My interest was kept, I enjoyed the characters but when I started feeling lost and cheated, that I would never get any closer to the lives, feelings and deeper philosophies, and what with some of the frustrating scenes between Daisy and Benjamin, I began to grow impatient.


I had been awaiting to see this movie for some time. Alas, it was Christmas Day and you bet I was there to see the movie on opening day. I set my expectations really high on this film. I expected nothing short of brilliance with a film coming from director David Fincher, director of the masterful "Zodiac" and screenwriter Eric Roth, writer of the classic "Forrest Gump". The acting is brilliant in the movie. Brad Pitt and the marvelous Cate Blanchett share a fire that resonates so effortlessly out to the audience. Other performances are notable as well, such as Taraji P. Henson's as Benjamin's mother, and Tilda Swinton's as Benjamin's first lover. Another notable achievement in the film is the visual effects; none of it is overdone and it is quite convincing. The music in the film is great as well. The haunting and mythical music is composed by Alexandre Desplat. One thing that did surprise me in the film was the amount of comedy present, but I guess comedy's needed for a tale with such sorrow. I really do think that this film is a classic. And I would go and see it again. When I was walking out of the theater, some people complained that the movie was very good, but that it was too long. I disagree; I actually didn't want it to end. It's the perfect film to watch all snuggled up in a blanket during the dead of winter. All things aside, this movie is about the short time we're given with life and how we are to make the most of it. Even with a story as fictional as Benjamin Button's, the message rings true.


Groucho Marx said there's no worse thief than a bad movie. (steals your money and your time) and that's exactly what this film is.

Do not, I repeat, do not tolerate the comparisons to Forrest Gump - a film filled with history, humor!, star-studded cast, a solid script, jam packed with history, one clever gimmick after the other and brilliant effects.

Spoiler - Benjamin Button had one effect, that was make-up: Take one of the world's most attractive men and make him look unattractive for 75% of the film, while he moans and groans about the deal he's been dealt in life. don't get me wrong, they did this well, but he's never sympathetic. Y'just don't care about him at all... to be honest, the whole film struck me as a giant, drawn-out metaphor for a midlife crisis: a man pines after a girl who's not ready for him for years and years, then when she finally takes him into her bed, they spend a glorious year between the sheets, and as soon as responsibility shows up in the form of a child, he runs away from commitment, blaming his condition. And what's the big deal with his condition??? So his body is getting younger.. not his mind. That would actually make him a great father... he'd be around for the same number of years as many fathers are for their children.. 30/40 years, and during that time he'd only have gotten stronger and younger, while his mind was still maturing. What a gift! Great, cherish it! Live it! Accept your lot in life, challenges and all, and be a remarkable human being. That's the challenge laid upon us all.

But no - Instead of facing his problem and taking on life and love and cherishing every moment, he lets down the woman he loves terribly and runs out on her, for what? to have sex with a few women? Preposterous.

And then of course, when he comes back, she forgives him for being a coward and a stinker. Well why? Why be so forgiving. What's so tough about his life, oh poor guy, he gets to get younger everyday, he gets to get stronger and better looking as he sleeps.. where was the appreciation of this miracle? Where were the papers who would have been making a big deal over him? Where was the major history that he lived through which we never saw? Where were his amazing slew of life experiences, we watched 90 years of a man's life and all he did was run and hide from who he was. Where was a p-l-o-t? - the guy had no appreciation for the people who loved him, never knew his mother was sick? Nope, just came home one day to find she'd died. Did he not stay in touch with anyone? He did have a sister. I guess she didn't want to call to let him know their mother was ill? Clearly no one cared enough about him to tell him. Classic. Well if they don't, I don't either. And why did Cate's character keep his postcards from their daughter once the journal was found? Made no sense. Cate moved into the house and lived with him for 5 years as he went through Alzheimer's as an infant - where was Julia's character during this time? Also not speaking to anyone? Was she not curious why her mother chose to spend 5 years of her life this way? Why did she never tell her about her father? Why did I watch this piece of drivel and waste my time??? Save yourself the agony.

I'm sorry F. Scott Fitzgerald. I'm sure you wrote a lovely short story. But that's all it was, a short story, and should have remained so. Before someone drags out your piece to a 3 hour sedative they ought to maybe actually write a s-t-o-r-y to justify the running time.

**Watch the trailer**. That's all you need. And really, do watch it. It's interesting, it's pretty to look at, and really that's the entire story right there, a minute-and-a-half, you can see all of the make-up and special effects, you can pretend you've seen the film, cause nothing more happens - save yourself 3 hours and go spend time with your family instead, appreciate the gift of life instead of squandering it on bad films, or watch a different movie, (ooh, Juno, that was a good flick with an actual script - about dealing with life, hardships and all without boring people to tears), or go bang your head against a wall, something remotely entertaining. Brad, Cate, Julia, you're wonderful, all of you, the whole cast, you're lovely, you got pummeled by a lousy non-script and mind-blowingly uninspired direction. I'm sorry for you all.


As of this writing, Benjamin Button is number 70 on IMDb's Top 250 movies of the year list. Many people believe this film deserves, in a year with films like Frost/Nixon and Doubt (and many others which I will not mention) that this is the one film which will bring home Best Picture.

Wow. This is overrated. It will bring home the Oscars it deserves: Cinematography and Makeup, and if it's very, very, lucky, Special Effects.

What bugs me most about the film is the thing at the core: the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin. It misses something very, very, important: why they fell in love in the first place.

The most interesting section is one that completely captivated: when he has a love affair with a lady at the Russian hotel, why? Because they kept it at a brisk 30 minutes so it doesn't drag on for 2 hours, it gets you captivated, and it ends when it is meant to end. You can also tell why they had the affair in the first place: they wanted to find out to what it was like to be in love, or in the girls case: Benjamin's strange affliction.

You (or at least me) become sick of Benjamin's relationship with Daisy when you realize it fails to ask the most important question at what is the dead center of the entire 2 hour 48 minute film: Why did they fall in love???

Pitt gives a tolerable performance, nothing Oscar worthy. Blanchett, on the other hand was very good as Daisy, trying to fuel the chemistry with Pitt that just isn't there.

It's also very long with a 168-minute runtime, it thinks it can spend all the time trying to win, but in the end, it fails. There are many useless scenes that could've been thrown out (particularly this one scene in which it shows all the things, which could've happened to prevent Daisy being hit by a cab, which leaves you thinking in the 5-minute section that feels more like 30 minutes which left me thinking "when will this end???").

Worth a rental for the astounding cinematography and makeup.


After having developed pretty much the most successful directorial career of the decade, Fincher just refuses to hold back his enormous talent, always picking the risky projects and churning out an exhilarating piece of work. He's come a long way as it is, and then comes along the curious "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". The title speaks for itself. The result can be anything between a predictable romantic drama, or a stirring, magical, unforgettable, heartbreaking, intelligent, challenging experience. I'm sure you can tell which direction I'm headed.

Oh, what a curious case indeed. The film begins as a child, born on the day of the end of the Great War (symbol of the beginning of life?), is abandoned by his father outside a boardinghouse dedicated for seniors. It is quickly revealed that he was born ugly and wrinkled (not quite the appearance of a child, but "still a child of God"). We don't find out immediately that he will lead his life physically aging backwards, but it is gradually revealed as he grows older, when his back begins to take shape and his wheelchair is rendered useless.

What ensues after developing his bizarre nature, however, is the true core of this absolutely spellbinding masterpiece. There is always a lingering dread that his relationships will never work beyond their limited time frame, but its characters are driven by soul, not any shallow desires. The heart of the film is the relationship between Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Will their love survive their difficult circumstances? Mortality is the key theme of this picture, the adamant difference between young and old age. Transience is man's greatest weakness.

Although it's a pretty glum and straightforward thing to say that nothing lasts, the film does not depict itself through false optimism, but rather through hope. Hope that beneath these torn souls, there is the chance of wisdom and love overcoming mortality, and it culminates a damned poignant realization. There is also a playful theme to summarize the entire film -- no matter which way you age, life will always f-ck you. Tell that to the millions of women undergoing their midlife crisis, I guarantee the results will not be pretty. I'm getting off- track now, so let me just say this is possibly the best film of the year, and many years to come.


I can't believe how positive the reviews for this movie are. I was extremely disappointed in this movie.

1. The old woman's voice was extremely annoying and over-acted. Perhaps even unrealistic as I have never heard an old person talk like that.

2. The hummingbird showing up at sea was stupid. Then it showed up again in the hurricane at the very end of the movie which was completely ridiculous.

3. When Benjamin was born he was born with the mind of a child, the body of an 80-year old but he was baby-sized. The fact that he had the body of a child but was baby-sized was a bit bit inconsistent but fine, I'll accept it. When he aged, his body size grew, but everything other than his body size became younger, and his brain grew older. Then, by the end of the movie, he had the mind of an 80-year old, and the body of a baby, but he was baby-sized again. He should have started as a normal sized 80-year old or he should have died as a large baby. I prefer the former. He could have been born as a 100 lb old man, and that could have explained why the mother died, because she had given birth to a 100 lb old man (she could have been a 300 lb pregnant woman, not any harder to believe than Benjamin's condition itself). Yeah it sounds crazy, but to me it makes more sense and is more consistent.

4. When old-body, young-mind Benjamin was screwing the whore they made reference to his stamina and he said something like "let's go again" to the whore. If he had an old body he would not have been such a performer in bed. Are people so stupid to believe that performance in bed is only mental?

5. Incredibly boring. Moves at a very slow pace for the entire movie. There is almost no conflict, just boring scene after boring scene.

6. Mr. Button grabbed the baby from the room in front of some nurses and a doctor and then ran away from a cop. He got away from the cop and put the baby on someone's front stairs. Did none of the people who saw him take the baby report him? At least to the media? If this movie made any effort to be realistic at all, Mr. Button would have feigned joy at the baby's birth and then dumped the baby after everyone had left. Or, they would have reported a missing baby with wrinkly skin.

7. Last minute of the movie was such a groaner. "Some play music, some are mothers, some dance..." give me a break.

8. Too long for what it is.