Broken Arrow starts as pilots Captain Riley Hale (Christian Slater) & Major Vic Deakins (John Travolta) board a Stealth bomber equipped with two nuclear missiles, they fly the Stealth over the Utah desert in what was supposed to be a routine mission to monitor radiation levels but Deakins tries to kill Hale in an attempt to steal the nuclear weapons. Hale manages to eject from the Stealth before Deakins kills him, Deakins then drops the unarmed bombs & ejects himself leaving the plane to crash. Having witnessed the crash park ranger Terry Carmichael (Samantha Mathis) goes to investigate & finds Hale, meanwhile Deakins has managed to trick the army into thinking the nuclear weapons have been breached & therefore rescue teams cannot be sent in. With easy access to the bombs he intends to bribe the Government into paying a ransom or he'll use them to wipe out half of the country, that is unless Hale & the park ranger can stop him & his men...

Directed by John Woo Broken Arrow was his second American action film after the fabulous Hard Target (1993), I personally rate Broken Arrow, & Hard Target for that matter, as one of my favourite over-the-top action flicks from the 90's & for that I apologise to no-one. The script by Graham Yost is as action packed as they come, there's loads of shoot-outs, fights, explosions, crashes, vehicular mayhem & near misses. Most people seem to think the basic story is pretty far fetched & I have to agree but it's by no means sillier than a lot of 90's action flicks like Speed (1994) for instance. What I like about it is that it moves along like a rocket & there isn't enough time between all the fights & explosions for small things like plot holes to make any huge difference. I also liked the character's here, the relationships between Hale & the sexy park ranger & between Hale & Deakins in particular, I just thought the character's & the way they were written & developed were better than the average action flick with themes like friendship & betrayed. I liked it, a lot.

Director Woo knows how to turn in a decent action flick & he doesn't disappoint here, while the unmistakable style of his earlier Hong Kong films may have been slightly sterilised by Hollywood the set-pieces in his films still remain very impressive. Broken Arrow probably has more helicopters being blown up & crashing than any other single film I think I've ever seen. Some of the explosions are huge, the fights are varied & well staged & most of the action is done the good old fashioned way on set in camera with real stunt men & real explosions rather than awful CGI computer effects which have become commonplace. The only scene which really made me cringe was when Hale falls off the back of the truck & he then picks himself up, runs after it, catches it up & jumps on the back! I don't think so, the truck itself had at least a 10 second head start before we even discuss how slow it would have to have been going for Hale to physically run after it & catch it up. The violence isn't too excessive, there's not much blood in it & the violence isn't sadistic or gloating as in say a lot of Steven Seagal films.

With a supposed budget of about $65,000,000 Broken Arrow is well made with that Hollywood polish about it, the special effects are good & there's plenty of big bangs & explosions for the money. The acting is alright, I liked Travolta (who was apparently paid $7,000,000 for this) as the villain in particular but he does come across as a bit theatrical at times, I thought Mathis was fine as the love interest although I thought Slater was a bit bland & forgettable as the hero.

Broken Arrow is a great action film, it has a good cast, great action scenes, loads of explosions, better than usual character's & it moves along at a good pace. I thought it was great & it's as simple & straight forward as that.


I love action movies, but come on! This was beyond the prediction land, you know exactly what was going to happen in each scene. I have to give credit, I had so much fun being sarcastic with this flick. Like the cheesy cliché' slow bomb sequences, I was like "NOOOOOO!!!", or John Travolta's "Super Duper Bad-Ass Villain" technique was too good to be true! It's like that last fight between him and Christain was "Give me your lunch money!". Or John's threatening tape to the Pentagon with the images of the nuclear attack I was like "Actually that was some scenes from Terminator 2: Jugdement Day, but the real attack would be a lot like that, yeah. Scary!" Him commanding just $250,000,000, I mean that was a lot of money, but come on! He could have settled for another billion! :D This is your typical action flick with no real decent plot. Nice try, John W., John T., and Christain, but this just didn't work.

1/10


As Steven Segal was hammering out the template for the 90s action blockbuster with Under Siege, John Woo was breaking his own ground with Hard Boiled. Woo's extremely violent but anaesthetisingly romanticised Chow Yun Fat vehicle is from the same stable. But with an entirely new international market - sorry, audience - in tow the Hollywood call was inevitable.

Hard Target came first... but this is the film designed for the big audience, fronted by Travolta. The whole thing takes place in the Utah desert with the exception of studio sequences for a mine and military control rooms. That's because Woo needs space in which to BLOW THINGS UP. Inbetween explosions there's an increasingly manic, wisecracking Travolta and earnest-but-dull Christian Slater. With the possible exception of Hans Zimmer's Woo-tailored score it's difficult to see if any money was spent anywhere else. 4/10


Christian Slater stars as Riley Hale, an air force pilot who finds himself the only able to take back a nuclear weapon from Vic Deakins (A shamelessly hammy John Travolta). Seems that Deakins is out to launch it due to him being passed up for promotions and the like. Of course aiding our hero is Samantha Mathis who is a park ranger. The problem with Broken Arrow is that it is too hollywoodized for John Woo to really work with. The premise has been done so many times that even John Woo's approach seems mundane. Sure there are some moments that excite and Woo crafts some decent suspense among the action sequences but generally you get the feeling you have seen it before and basically it is all half hearted. Worst of all is that it has Howie Long who is quite simply terrible in the role as head mercenary. The characters themselves never engage and really the movie never builds enough momentum. Certainly in comparison to Woo's HK work and even his work in Hard Target, Broken Arrow is nothing but a gigantic disappointment.

* * out of 4-(Fair)


There is some history between this film and I. It was the first movie I ever saw in an aeroplane, on a flight to Detroit to visit relatives for Christmas. The problem is, it was immediately followed by the Jerry Bruckheimer action flick "The Rock" and if you've seen both of these movies then you'll know which is the better. In which case, you may as well toddle off right now. If you haven't seen either of them then pay attention because "Broken Arrow" is a shocking effort from arguably Hong Kong's finest director John Woo. Lacking much of the Woo style and polish that propelled him into Hollywood, this is little more than a brainless, trigger-happy waste of a film that quickly runs out of steam and descends into farce.

John Travolta and Christian Slater play a couple of US Air Force pilots on a routine training exercise over Utah. Whilst testing a stealth plane's abilities, Major Deakins (Travolta) takes the opportunity to steal two nuclear warheads that happen to be on board the plane (despite the fact it's a mere training exercise) by ejecting Captain Hale (Slater) out of the plane and crashing it near others in on the plan. It is soon left to Hale and an impossibly cute Park Ranger by the name of Terry Carmichael (Samantha Mathis)to recover the warheads and make them safe, while Travolta's evil plan begins to take shape. Not exactly rocket science but there you go.

It's safe to say that this is one of the simplest action films I've ever seen, with a relatively small cast and a plot so basic that only the most moronic of viewers will struggle to keep up. Despite this, there are some truly awe-inspiring lapses of logic such as the hilarious scene where Travolta, seemingly having planned everything down to the last detail, can't find someone hidden beneath a blanket in a small boat. It almost takes your breath away how clichéd the whole thing is and without the usual stylistic tricks of action-master Woo (seen in stuff like "M:I 2"), it feels like a cheap and nasty TV movie. Slater is probably the best of the performances alongside Delroy Lindo as an Air Force support guy but Travolta is in standard pantomime-bad-guy mode. For further examples, see rubbish like "The Punisher" or "Swordfish" but only if you wanted a laugh.

It's such a shame that Woo's American career got off to such a dodgy start (this is the second US film he made, after the Van Damme film "Hard Target"). The plot and genre are hardly taxing and yet this is a real dog's dinner. Compared to something like "The Rock" which is not the best example of an action movie (and one I was forced to compare this to by the airline), this is an absolute waste of time, money and effort. Indeed, I'm struggling to see what attracted Woo to the project in the first place unless he was straining at the leash to work with a resurgent Travolta. Assuming you switch your brain to just above comatose levels of activity, you might enjoy the whole silliness of it all but honestly, I can't recommend anything about this picture to anyone. My advice is to stick with Woo's later material such as "Face/Off" or his earlier Hong Kong career such as the gritty cop film "Lashou Shentan" ("Hard Boiled"). Or you can watch another action film altogether because the chances are, it'll be better than this.


John Travolta the star of Grease and Pulp Fiction plays the bad guy, Christian Slater is the good guy and John Woo directs. John Woo has directed allot of japan ease action films and I believe this is his American debut. The film is pretty good, and keeps you interested up until the very end.

"Broken Arrow" is the term used to describe a nuclear device that has been lost. Major Deakins (Trovolta) is a tough U.S. Air Force pilot who is assigned to a flight mission with Captain Hale (Slater). They are to fly the B3 Stealth Bomber on war-game maneuvers over Utah loaded with two live nuclear weapons. Deakins, having been continually passed over for promotion, sells out his country and arranges to use the thermonuclear warheads under his command to blackmail the U.S. government. The only thing standing in his way is his old buddy, Captain Hale....

Most of the time, a phenomenally silly and goofy action movie that has expertly staged action scenes (the director is John Woo, what do you expect?) but absolutely nothing to stimulate the intellect. So its another movie that you TURN-OFF your brain to watch.

If you would rather think and watch a more plot driven film try American Beaty, Fight Club, The Usuall Suspects, The Aviator and many more.


This film is hardly a masterpiece, though it does have some good moments and plenty of action. Really it should have been named "Broken Helicopter" -- by my rough count they wreck at least 3, maybe 4, helicopters during the course of this film.

Travolta is over-the-top, of course, and Slater is fine in his role. Howie Long does a good job as the henchman.

I wouldn't spend money to see this, but if it's on cable and you're in the mood for a lot of wrecked helicopters, check it out.


If you're ready for a McGyver episode, then this is what you should watch. This movie is terrible from beginning to end. Let's not even mention the cheap "Top Gun" soundalike score in the background... One could expect nice cinematography from John Woo but not even... Samantha Mathis' acting was not credible one bit and God knows what Christian Slater was doing there... Fortunately there are real actors such as Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme for this kind of movie. :-)

3 out of 10 (for John Travolta's acting and some (very few) creative typical John Woo action scenes) - but maybe is that too much...


John Woo is a respected director of Hong Kong action movies, who has now turned to Hollywood mainstream. His debut US movie, 'Hard Target', failed to maintain all of his usual style.

This is Woo's second US movie, and is an improvement on 'Hard Target'. For a start, there's all of Woo's trademark action - slow-motion gunplay, double-gun action, dazzling stunts and massive explosions. There's also the underlying meanings of piece hidden under the rising bodycount.

There's also some talent on show. Playing the enigmatic and truly psychotic bad guy is rising A-list star John Travolta, and he steals the film from co-star Christian Slater.

However, the improvement in the acting department only masks the unoriginal plot (stolen nuclear warhead... You can probably guess the rest) and the lack of character development. Travolta's character is probably the only one with any emotion.

All in all, Woo is getting the hang of his Hollywood ventures, and his action has and always will be maintained to a high level. All that needs to be sorted out are the characters.


This movie is a about two stealth fighters who go head to over stolen missiles . It a very fast movie with a great score by Hans Zimmer(The lion king) . At least the movie gives one a idea on what the government do to get the missles back. Some of the action sequences are little over the top and so is the corny dialogue. Overall, it still my favorite one from the movie's two main stars!!!Plus you get great views of Utah in the movie!!Maybe even Zion national Park?Great fun if you like fast action movies !!!


Broken Arrow is one of those stupid action movies, which do not respect the spectators' IQ.The directing was awful and the script completely unintelligent with some huge mistakes. The only thing that makes the film worthwhile to be seen is John Travolta's great acting. The music also (composed by Hans Zimmer) is very good.


One got the feeling throughout there was nothing here but people going through the motions to collect a paycheck. There are some talented people working here (John Woo, John Travolta, Christian Slater, Samantha Mathis) and they're all decent, but they are merely working in service of a standard story, and don't do anything to elevate it above standard. It says something that the only one who makes an impression is Frank Whaley, who's not on screen that long. But it must be said that without this film doing so well, Woo wouldn't have been able to make FACE/OFF, so that's in its favor.


For a John Woo film, this one is pretty redundant. It's not usual to watch two attackers point weapons at each others' faces, but BROKEN ARROW sure could use a "face"-lift! The acting needs better work! Neither of the two leading men can act as tough as they should, with John Travolta in the worst-case scenario. Samantha Mathis, while attempting to be the leading action lady in a few parts, suffers from a nervous breakdown. What's interesting is the suspense of preventing a nuclear catastrophe, but that premise is overridden by too many borrowed cliches from other action-adventure movies. Listen for Travolta shouting "Hush! Hush!" in a softer, keener voice when he's the one plotting the destruction. Woo fans can woo over FACE/OFF or any of his original material. Some things are meant to be broken, and this movie doesn't put itself back together.


I've read the reviews on this website and can only conclude that the two Johns involved with this movie (Travolta and Woo) must have paid a lot of people a lot of money to register with IMDb and write 10-star reviews to balance out the more valid 1 and 2-star reviews. This movie is absolutely atrocious in every aspect: directing, acting, special effects, dialog, plot-line, you name it. If Travolta were playing his role more tongue-in-cheek and the movie itself were touted as a comedy, then it might be palatable. But the movie and actor both appear to be actually taking themselves seriously, and the result is something that is just dreadful to watch. It took all my strength to actually see it through to the end all the while hoping that something redeeming would happen. It did not. Do not waste your time by seeing this movie. Use the two hours to weed your garden, mow your lawn, change the cat litter, or wash the windows. Any of those things are more enjoyable than sitting through this.


I never liked John Woo and this film is the epitome of bad movie making. All of John Woo's films are bad and in the same way. They have ridiculously overdone battle scene's and the rest of the film seems like it is on auto drive until they get to the next action scene.

Christain Slater is a good actor but he is surrounded by incompetence and it simply brought him down with the rest of the film. The writing is awful and it has a tacked on and meaningless ending.

This movie was terrible and pointless from beginning to end. I still have no idea how John Woo is still making movies, but one things for sure, he shouldn't be.


This worthless collection of anti-military cliches is so bad that it actually makes Battlefield Earth look good by comparison. It demonstrates that the writers and director were completely ignorant of nuclear weaponry, military procedures, and even basic geography. One of the very worst movies ever made.


For every brilliant movie John Woo makes ("The Killer", "Face/Off") there seem to be at least 2 incredibly bad ones ("Hard Target", "Mission: Impossible 2", and of course this lame piece of **** called "Broken Arrow".

while the action scenes are not a total loss, they could have been a lot better. Whatever good action there is, is brought down by extremely poor dialogue, a completely over-the-top bad guy (John Travolta, not as poor here as in "Battlefield Earth", but coming very close), and incredibly boring hero (Christian Slater) and just way too many cliches. Do yourself a favor. Watch Face/Off instead

* out of **** stars


This is one of a long line of "idiot" movies; so called because they only appeal to morons.

The only GOOD thing that can be said about it is it would make a good 15 segment serial of the 40s and 50s.

As a movie, it is totally unbelievable, absurd, and just another vehicle for the lavish and costly "action enhancement" Hollywood grinds out.

I would have it packaged with "Return of The Atomic Man", and shown on Saturday morning along wiith "Buck Jones" and "The Three Mesquiteers" (Retroactive to 1947)


Over the top John Woo action flick that works with Travolta as a devious villain, but fails miserably because of the obvious miscasting of Slater as an action star. Mathis is also way off as a park ranger, or something like a park ranger. Maybe she was looking for the set where they were filming the latest Yogi Bear movie.


Didn't Hollywood get this putrid mess out of their systems back in the 70's when filming all those abysmal James Bond dogs? Now they come back with a rehash of the same old crap with 2 popular actors; who, I might add, could and have done better. This turkey never left the ground it was so weighted with a dull script and terminally stupid dialogue. Had the producers cut out all the silly one liners and unrealistic footage, the show would have lasted about 10 minutes. Travolta deserves better than this, but I guess he couldn't say no to the payday.


Unfortunately taking all of the best action movie cliché's and putting them end to end in one totally plot less film does not make a good movie. The way that the hero (played by Christian Slater) narrowly escapes death from everything that comes his way is laughable to the point that by halfway through the movie I was hoping he would be killed so that the film would end. Nothing in the movie comes even close to being plausible - every plot detail is riddled with holes and demonstrates the producers had a complete lack of understanding of how things work in the real world. By the end of the movie I was left wondering why I had bothered to waste my time and money to see it through to the end, had I seen the movie thinking it was intended as a comical parody of the action movie genre I might have enjoyed it a lot more.

This is the worst film I have ever seen, ever! If this is the first action movie you have ever seen then you *might* love it, otherwise it should be avoided at all cost. Utterly dreadful 1/10.


Not on the same level as The Searchers or Red River or even Hondo, But The Fighting Kentuckian IS an enjoyable film to watch.

I don't know how accurate the history really is, but I do know that the remnants of Napoleon's band of loyal followers DID establish a community in the Southern part of the US at about the same time that Andrew Jackson was fighting The Battle of New Orleans with the help of, (although not mentioned in this film), Jean Laffite who may have been a pirate, but preferred to be called a free-booter.

Vera Hruba Ralston is the lovely daughter of one of Napoleon's most important Generals. She is quite charming here. Her Czech accent could pass for French.

John Wayne looks marvelous in leather and delivers his lines like a true straight-man when partnered with Oliver Hardy. That is a side-kick combo like no other and worth the price of admission.

The film contains many site gags, but my favorite is the one where Wayne and Hardy pretend to be surveyors and Hardy ends up in a pond.

My favorite one liner in The Fighting Kentuckian is the one where John Breen (John Wayne), after being shot while surveying, comes to a cabin of French settlers, and is discovered by the men who shoot him. They offer him a drink, "Have a shot?" they ask. Breen replies as he mounts his horse, "No thanks, just had one..." and holds up his wounded arm.

There is no point in summarizing the plot line, it is only there to allow John Wayne to kiss Vera Ralston, in the moonlight illuminating the patio of her mansion, watched by her father, the general! That kiss is one of those patented "take her to the moon" kisses that Wayne gave select lucky ladies. (Those lucky ladies reeled for hours after.)

Oliver Hardy is the third part of this delightful three-some. There is action when the French are attacked by the evil river-men who want their land, and are in turn repelled by the Fighting Kentuckians,(the whole kit and kaboodle),lead by a trumpet-blowing Hardy.

When the film first came out it was a smash-hit, and it is easy to see why. There is an easy humor, gallantry and romance here that I miss in modern films. Films now are so message-conscience and so full of unappealing, gratuitous nudity and sex, that it's fun to relax with a film that suggests much more than it shows and does it with style and a wink of the eye.


In The Fighting Kentuckian John Wayne steps back a couple of generations on the American Frontier from where he usually has his movie roles to play a frontier soldier. He's one of the Kentucky riflemen who saw action in the Indian wars and the Battle of New Orleans with Andrew Jackson. His company is going home to Kentucky to be de-mobilized. But in a town in Alabama called Demopolis, Wayne gets a bit sidetracked by the lovely Vera Hruba Ralston.

Ralston is the daughter of Hugo Haas who plays one of Napoleon's former generals who is now leading a party of French exile settlers who have settled on land granted to them in Demopolis. The problem is that the French settlers are being set up for a big con game by a quartet of villains, Marie Windsor, Paul Fix, John Howard, and Grant Withers. Because of Wayne's growing involvement with Ralston he and sidekick Oliver Hardy get drawn into the problems of the settlers.

That's right I did say Oliver Hardy. While partner Stan Laurel was having health problems Hardy did this film with John Wayne and another, Riding High, with Bing Crosby. It's a different Ollie we see in The Fighting Kentuckian, not the know it all forever getting hoisted on his own petard by his bumbling partner Laurel. For most of the film he's a traditional sidekick to Wayne in the Gabby Hayes tradition. However there is one scene where Ollie gets to use the Duke as a substitute Stan Laurel. Wayne and Hardy sneak into a party given by Haas as musicians, fiddlers to be precise. Hardy actually plays, but Wayne is going to fake it. That is until the piece they're playing calls for a solo. As each musician does his bit, the expressions on Wayne's face are pure Stan Laurel. Ollie who was never the creative one in their partnership had to have coached Wayne on this. He does all the traditional Stan Laurel shtick, but cry. It's very funny, totally not what you would expect from John Wayne. It's the highlight of the film for me.

On the negative side the film is a bit overplotted. The quartet of villains mentioned above are all not quite working in tandem. Each one has his own agenda and it makes the film a bit hard to follow.

Still I believe the Duke's fans will enjoy a somewhat different John Wayne and Laurel and Hardy fans would appreciate Wayne's attempts at a salute to Stan. I think Ollie worked better with the Duke than he did with Harry Langdon in Zenobia.


People thinking of the historical record of the United States (prior to the controversy of the current Iraqi War) frequently overlook one peculiar diplomatic lapse. From 1812 to 1815 we were allied with Napoleon Bonaparte, at least unofficially. President Madison's decision to declare war on Great Britain in 1812 put us into this unique situation where instead of fighting for democratic government we were willing to be allied to a megalomaniac Emperor.

The War of 1812 is usually bypassed quickly in our schools (we lost it - the official line is it was a draw but our capital was burned in that war, and that never happened again). Napoleon was a cynical ally at best, but he never quite forgot that we were tied to him. After Waterloo he appears to have considered fleeing by French naval vessel to the U.S., using his brother Jerome's passport as his. He was captured before he could do this - possibly one of the most unexpected blessings in American history, for Bonaparte would not have stopped being Bonaparte if he had landed here.

However other French veterans did come here after the war - the restored Bourbon monarchy was not welcoming to soldiers who fought for Napoleon in the "100 days" of 1815. So many did come to our shores, and this film discusses how a party of them tried to settle in Alabama in 1819, but were nearly swindled out of their land.

The film is well made, especially in the casting of Babe Hardy as John Wayne's sidekick Willy. Wayne's sidekicks usually played it for laughs in his westerns, most memorably Gabby Hayes. Even Kirk Douglas (in THE WAR WAGON) is funny in his constant efforts to out-Wayne, Wayne by his gymnastic abilities. But Hardy has a marvelous rapport with Wayne. Witness the scene where they do the surveying (which neither of them knows much about). Hired (as a trick, as it turns out, by Grant Withers and Marie Windsor), they fumble around with the surveyor's telescope and the measuring stick, and (in following Wayne's orders) Hardy ends up defiantly holding up a measuring rod in the middle of a pond. Also the fiddle concert that both crash is a monument to surprise, as Hardy actually demonstrates he can play the fiddle and can do it comically. Wayne is less able to do that. On the other hand, Hardy can show a serious edge that is not frequently seen in his comedies with Stan Laurel. Listen to his calm discussion regarding his "putting away" hat with Wayne, or his care as a scout watching Wayne's capture, following him from a distance in the dark, and then heading for assistance.

The film is good to a point, but it's main problem is it is about 90 minutes long, but has enough plot for two hours. The film's initial villain is the smooth, apparently upper-crust John Howard, planning to swindle the French soldiers out of their money and land. Then it turns out that Grant Withers (Howard's business manager) is actually a more manipulative criminal than Howard, and is able to topple Howard unexpectedly. But Withers' girlfriend (Marie Windsor) plans to rob him of the money and run off with her actual boyfriend. All the villains are killed at the end by their criss-crossing situations (only one, Howard, dies redeeming himself), but the plotting and counter-plotting is so intensely complicated that the viewer has to accept it's intense pressure due to the time limitations of the movie.

Accept that, and the film is still entertaining. It gets a 7 on my voting.


John Wayne's second effort as star/producer (after "Angel and the Badman", in 1947), "The Fighting Kentuckian" is a VERY enjoyable tale, set in 1818 Alabama, of coonskin-capped Wayne, part of the Kentucky militia, falling for French immigrant Vera Ralston (in her second film with Duke), and discovering a plot to swindle the French community (composed of ex-officers of Napoleon, and their families) out of their land, by aristocrat John Howard and ruthless river boss Grant Withers.

What truly makes this film 'special' for me is Wayne's sidekick, portrayed by the legendary Oliver Hardy, of 'Laurel and Hardy' fame. Hardy, while a friend of Wayne, had only worked 'solo' once in a feature film in over twenty years (1939's "Zenobia"), and it took a LOT of coaxing (and Stan Laurel's 'blessing'), to get him to accept the role...and what a pleasure he is, to watch! Wayne and Hardy have a rich, warm chemistry, and the rotund comedian, with his infectious smile and Georgia drawl, makes even minor scenes (like swapping recipes with Ralston's mother) a joy.

With a first-rate supporting cast including Philip Dorn, Hugo Haas, Wayne 'regulars' Paul Fix, Jack Pennick, and Hank Worden, and Marie Windsor (who looks eerily like John Howard, in my opinion!), "The Fighting Kentuckian" is, despite the 'pans' you'll see in some of the reviews posted, one of my favorite John Wayne films...He was never more charming than you'll find him, here!


This movie is pure Republic Pictures B-movie all the way, with relatively low production values, Vera Ralston (girlfriend of the CEO) and lots of action. And this is not necessarily a bad thing (apart from the lousy acting by Ralston), as the movie is highly entertaining. So, if you just turn off your brain and enjoy, this is a terrific film. I particularly love seeing Oliver Hardy playing a rare supporting actor role very late in his career. Is he believable? Not in the least. But, he's funny and quite the sidekick to John Wayne. The plot, such as it is, involves Wayne falling for Cajun Ralston (a Swedish actress playing a Creole woman?!) and getting into a wide variety of scraps along the way. Not much more to it than that but it is so much fun, who cares?! I can forgive all this because the film is somehow charming and memorable.


George Waggner directs this John Wayne classic. Soon after the Battle of New Orleans, in the early 1800's, a Kentucky rifleman(Wayne)and his fighting buddy(Oliver Hardy)linger in a settlement of French, homesteading in Alabama. The frontiersmen duo saves the community from a strong assault by land grabbers. Action packed and well photographed; and an attention holder throughout. This film is well worth watching again and again.

Wayne and Hardy work well together and make an interesting team. The cast if full of talent: Vera Ralston, Philip Dorn, Anna Logan, John Howard and Marie Windsor.


This is my favorite of John Wayne's b/w movies. The movie is based on a little-known fact: that the town of Demopolis, Alabama was founded by former officers and enlisted men of the Napoleonic French army, and their families. And, the Duke plays John Breen; a member of the Second Kentucky Regiment, just returning from a campaign against pro-British Creek Indians, during the War of 1812.

His outfit has marched to the port city of Mobile, to see if they can get a steamboat ride home. But, evidently, they didn't have enough money for the snobbish taste of Blake Randolph (the local shipping magnate). So, they have to resume traveling home on foot. A fact that the regiment keeps reminding the viewer of, via "...that g.d. song" (as my father so hilariously called it)!

Enter Fleurette De Marchand (Vera Ralston); the bored debutante daughter of Gen. De Marchand. She lets Breen steal her fiancé's carriage, just to perk up a dull afternoon. And, Breen--who doesn't want to wait until he's discharged in Kentucky, to make a fresh start--now has another reason to stay in Alabama. *Wink-wink! Nudge-nudge!*

But, as fate would have it, Fleurette's fiancé IS Blake Randolph! And, what's worse: he's in cahoots with George Hayden, the crooked boss of the riverboat men. *Think "union racketeer." *

Their scheme is to let the French develop the wrong land, then steal it out from under them. But, Breen--with the help of Willie Paine (Oliver Hardy, who's surprisingly good without Stan Laurel)--ultimately thwarts the scheme. And, following a great military showdown, wins the girl, as well.

In short, this is a great blend of romance, action, and comedy. And, just remember: "Only 600 miles more to go(More to go!). Only 600 miles more to go(MORE TO GO!). "


This is the movie that made John Wayne a millionaire. When Republic pictures agreed to make the film,studio head Herbert J. Yates insisted that his favorite leading lady, Vera Hruba Ralston be given the female lead. John protested until Yates agreed he could form a production company and own a piece of Wake of The Red Witch,his next outing. John did and Wake gave him over a million dollars in salary. I guess he should have thanked Vera for his success. Anyway,Kentuckian is a very good film with the Republic stock company backing John and Oliver Hardy playing his sidekick. I always liked Vera Ralston and thought she looked good in period films. She actually looks like portraits of women of the era rather than a conventionally movie star. Republic excelled in action scenes and the final stampede of wagons and horses is much more exciting than they do nowadays.


Curse Of The Vampires is a direct follow-up to the late director Gerardo de Leon's equally compelling 1964 The Blood Drinkers. Dubbed into English and released by Hemisphere Pictures in 1971 as the bottom of a double bill with his frequent collaborator Eddie Romero's Beast Of Blood, it looked to the world like any other low budget drive-in nonsense. But de Leon, along with Romero (the Blood Island trilogy, The Walls Of Hell), was a classically trained filmmaker and is enshrined as a Philippines National Artist, and thus everything he does is with purpose, from the masterful framing, composition, lighting As a result, Curse Of The Vampires is not just a throwaway B-programmer with bloodsuckers but a serious horror film with deep cultural resonances.

A further link to The Blood Drinkers is Amalia Fuentes, who also produced Curse under her real name Amalia Muhlach for her own production company. Amalia was one of the most famous Philippine actresses of the Sixties, a mixed Spanish or "mestizo" beauty who plays the heroine Leonore, a tragic figure at the center of the doomed Escudero family riddled with vampirism and more. As a Spanish colony until the late 1800s, the country's Hispanic legacy is still strong, leaving behind a feudal nobility who owed its allegiances more to Madrid than Manila. It's no accident the film is set in the 1800s, in a Spanish mansion filled with the frayed trappings of a fading and failing colonial presence. Leonore's mother is played by Mary Walter, a popular mestizo actress from the Philippines' silent era; the very Spanish-looking Eddie Garcia plays the weak and corrupt brother Eduardo, a classic villain of Tagalog movies here playing a less cartoonish and much more multi-layered version of pure evil. The other enduring legacy of the Spanish era is its overt Catholicism, which, as in many of Spain's former colonies, has mutated into a strange hybrid of local folk beliefs with its own uniquely Filipino iconography. In this context, Curse Of The Vampires becomes a deeply Catholic morality play of good versus evil, combined with a cloying Filipino sentiment of love conquering all.

The film opens with Leonore in the arms of Daniel (Romeo Vasquez), a pure-hearted local lad who promises her to love her even from beyond the grave. Her father Don Enrique Escudero (Johnny Monteiro) denies permission for them to marry due to the family curse - vampirism, like madness, is borne by blood, and he has unwittingly kept the curse alive by keeping his vampire wife Dona (Mary Walter) locked in the basement. Every night she wakes up in her coffin, her now-animalistic screams pleading for blood. Don Enrique is forced to whip her into submission but can't let go  the family has become insular to the point of incestuous. The mother finally escapes from the basement, captured in a beautifully executed shot of the former matriarch, now a savage beast, tinted red in the foreground while her stern-looking portrait looms in the background. Eduardo willingly allows himself to be turned into a vampire by his mother's loving embrace, and when his father dies in tragic circumstances, he assumes the paternal role of feudal lord. His veins now coursing with evil, he covets both his sister and Daniel's sister Christina (Rosario del Pilar), to whom he becomes an aristocratic predator, demanding total servitude from his new vampiric bride ("You are my lord, I am your slave," Christina says most tellingly on her short-lived honeymoon).

Leonore accepts her fate to follow the family curse, yet Daniel won't allow her and reiterates his oath to protect her, in this life and the life after. The entire film is tinged with sadness and loss, and ends with not just a mob of angry villagers, but an entire Catholic parade, all brandishing torches while praying to gaudy statues of Mama Mary. Filipino Gothic was a relatively small and short-lived genre, but de Leon certainly made it his own.

Its predecessor The Blood Drinkers was filmed with very little money in mostly black and white with tinted scenes for dramatic effect. Curse is filmed in color and loses some of The Blood Drinkers' aesthetic charms. De Leon does have a tendency to go overboard with in-studio lighting effects like a foaming-at-the-mouth Mario Bava, bathing entire scenes in saturated red and blue gels. It's hardly subtle, but the effect is eerie and claustrophobic to say the least, even in the elaborately-lit jungle and cemetery exteriors. Weird without intent and without a trace of kitsch, this is, along with The Blood Drinkers, undoubtedly one of Filipino horror's finest moments.


I first read about this in Fred Olen Ray's fantastic "The New Poverty Row", so when I saw it for $5 at Grimsby Giant Tiger, I scarfed it up. And damned if it doesn't have Ray himself introducing the thing in a sexist intro that will do nothing for his Irving Thalberg Award campaign. As for the movie itself, well, there's not much to say. It's an example of the era's Filipino horror output - and not one of the best (!!!) either - mom is supposed to be dead but she's locked in the basement and has turned into a vampire, and bites her son, and quite limited action ensues, some involving locals in blackface as happy slaves. Dull and slow and not nearly as tawdry as the scene's rep.


This is a bad film. Its not a good bad movie, its just a bad movie.

The plot has something to do with the adult children of a family finding out that their mother hasn't really been dead, rather she was changed into a vampire and had been kept locked up by their father in a secret crypt.

I've run across this movie a under a couple of different names and under everyone of them its a turkey. Nothing in this film works. The acting is more like over the top soap opera spoof than any realistic. The aged Grannie who plays the vampire is more laughable than frightening with the result that you may hurt yourself from laughing at it all.

2 out of 10 for the occasional unintentional laugh, otherwise this is a movie to be avoided at all costs.


This is a real stinker. I can think of nothing to recommend this film. The film transfer is from a completely washed out print, the audio is muffled and muddy and the dubbing is out of sync. And that's just the technical problems. The story line goes nowhere. The acting makes those Mexican movies from the early 60's (remember 'K.Gordon Murray presents') appear to be Citizen Kane. For offering itself as a vampire movie I really don't recall seeing any blood in it. I think once or twice I did see someone bare their fangs-the five and dime store plastic variety. I picked this one up for $1.00 and boy did I get gypped. I forgot to mention this is part of a "drive in treasures" collection so there are intros and wrap-arounds with two unfunny individuals pretending they are sitting in a car at the drive-in. Even the intermission tag they use is faded and scratchy and appears to be about 10 generations from the original. This is a complete waste of time. Not even one of those so-bad-it's-good movies. Stay away.


I would like to disagree with the above. I thought that the use of the remaining stills to recompose this movie, was brilliantly done. It was, indeed, obviously a labor of love, but now, we at least have SOME idea of what the audience saw in 1927...here it is, 2006, and I thought that for it's time, it probably WAS frightening. And Chaney's makeup is outstanding. The people of that era weren't used to those kinds of images on the screen, so I imagine that they were probably petrified by Chaney and his ghastly makeup, which, for its day, was superb, as I stated before. I'm clearly a Chaney fan, however, so, more than likely, I am truly biased.

All in all, this was brilliant, I thought.


I must admit I am totally satisfied with the reconstructed version that aired on TCM on Halloween a few years back. Rick Schmidlin has really done a wonderful thing and given the people who care (the fans) a chance to see how the script looked and how the story moved for this famous lost film.

In all truth, judging by Browning's other silents of the period, Schmidlin probably improved upon the pacing of the film and gave us more "shock" close-ups of Chaney in that wonderful make-up. The use of stills also probably saved us from being distracted with some ham acting as well. Just like watching a letterbox film on television, after the first five minutes, my mind settled into the tempo and pacing and I really did enjoy the story. It had much more to do with vampire lore than I thought it would and was so perfect to air on Halloween night.

The film reconstruction was about 20 minutes shorter than the original cut. The film truly was a Chaney picture from beginning to end. He is much more prominent than either Lionel Barrymore or Bela Lugosi in the 1935 Mark of the Vampire. I enjoyed the story more than the 1935 version too. Thank god they did not have that ridiculous "cupping the blood with a hot glass" solution. It is much more simple and clear to have it be a gun shot and they still had all of the great Gothic vampire atmosphere. Also, characters were missing, such as Lionel Atwill's character from the 1935 film. Chaney really carried the picture.

The music score was too excellent, highlighting Chaney's vampire and giving us some other recurring themes that we associate with silent horror classics. And the camera movements were excellent and after a slow opening they seemed to have more stills to work with and made good use of them too. All in all, an important, delightful work! 8/10


"London After Midnight" is perhaps the most sought after movie, that is presumed lost. The only remaining print of it was destroyed in a fire in the late '60's. I tend to say no. Remaining still existing pictures of Lon Chaney in full make-up effect added to the hype of this movie and also the fact that this Tod Browning movie features vampires, 4 years before he made the horror-classic "Dracula", starring Bela Lugosi. In 2002 a reconstruction, made from still photographs of the 1927 was made and aired on TCM. It's an attempt to retell the story and show how the movie must have been like, also with the help of persons who had actually seen the 1927 movie at the time of its release. It's an interesting experiment and attempt to reconstruct a lost movie, though it of course doesn't work out as good as the moving images would had.

The movie purely consists out of photographs. It makes the sequence feel rather limited in terms of its mood, acting and overall storytelling. It's a flat and far from engaging way of film-making, that is not always easy to watch. I mean, you can just as good read a paper version of this movie with pictures in it and let your own imagination do the work. It perhaps would work out way better than this movie eventually did.

The movie features a whole lot of characters that don't get properly introduced (but then again, how could they). It makes the movie confusing and also from an engaging one to watch.

The story and its plot really don't work out because of the way of storytelling. The movie is more of a murder-mystery than a horror-movie, like you perhaps would expect from persons like director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney. I suggest that if you want to understand the story, you watch "Mark of the Vampire". A 1935 sort of remake of this movie, also directed by Tod Browning and starring Lionel Barrymore and Bela Lugosi.

But was the 'real' "London After Midnight" really a great classic movie? I tend to say no. At the rime of its release the movie already got mixed reactions from the critics, though the movie still was the highest grossing Tod Browning/Lon Chaney movie.

The story was too weak and messy to make this a classic must-see. It isn't a very intriguing story and the movie misses tension, a good solid main plot and likable main characters. But of course it's impossible to say this with a 100% certainty, since I haven't seen the 'real' moving full length version of this movie, for the obvious reason.

It really looked like Lon Chaney's presence uplifted the movie though, both with his looks and performance. He looked genuine creepy in his role, with some great make-up effects and mimics from 'the man of a thousand faces'. It's the reason why this movie is still probably better than the average one from the same genre, especially for 1927 standards. Also Edna Tichenor as Luna the Bat Girl looked impressive in her role.

The sets looked good and it must had given the movie a real good and creepy kind of atmosphere, I assume. Like mentioned before, the make-up effects also looked really convincing and are now part of the movie its legacy and status among movie lovers.

This movie forms a good enough alternative to still be able to watch this lost 1927 movie from legendary director Tod Browning and actor Lon Chaney, until the real movie shows up again somewhere, though this isn't very likely to ever happen.

7/10


London After Midnight is without a doubt the most sought after lost film in history.So badly do we want to see The Man in the Beaver Hat have motion that TCM made this reconstruction that gives a loose idea of what the plot was like. This reconstruction gives us more or less a taste of what this picture might have looked like on the screen but I think TCM failed to understand the allure of London After Midnight. Most Chaney fans accept the fact that London After Midnight received poor to lukewarm reviews but Chaney's make-up and characterization through the photos we have left have left us fascinated. The Chaney fan in me wants the much better film The Miracle Man to be found but the kid in me wants London After Midnight. This make-up is some of the best in film history, I argue that the vampire in London After Midnight is Chaney's finest make-up and the picture hasn't been seen by mainstream audiences in 80 years.

I can tell that the best people were involved with this reconstruction of the picture and that they meant well but inevitably people will be disappointed. London After Midnight without action is exactly what it has been all along, lifeless. The fact that all we have left are these still photographs doesn't quench our thirst in the least bit, it makes us even thirstier. I know Lon Chaney's characterization and performance must have been fascinating and when we see that outstanding make-up in a narrative fashion we want to see it move with life. Browning's sense of the macabre and the atmosphere of terror are all too ingrained in what we have left.

The finished product? It's actually watchable, I know a lot of people complain about reconstructions but I thought this one was okay. The narrative is pretty much intact even when they have trouble finding images for scenes. The crew even gives us some seldom seen photos which show the supporting cast give some interesting interpretations of their characters. My favorite thing about this production was the score which is outstanding, very dark and foreboding and much like what this film probably was scored with in the 1920's.

As for the plot, I'll put my money that many people would be disappointed if London After Midnight was found because they didn't grasp the plot. Tod Borwning's 1935 remake Mark of the Vampire is in essence a faithful remake and it has been panned for it's "fake vampires". Chaney plays a Scottland Yard detective named Burke who uses hypnosis and fear to try to find the murderer of Roger Balfour. Burke is in fact the Vampire who haunts the Balfour mansion, he plans to scare the killer into a confession. Not many people like the plot after reading it and seeing this reconstruction, I do. Chaney is playing something he seldom got to play, a smart man and a hero at that. Is the plot a little far fetched? Undoubtedly so but this is Tod Browning we are talking about here with Lon Chaney in the lead role. With the atmosphere and a great performance by Chaney I have no doubt that this film could have been good even great.

The loss of London After Midnight is all the more tragic because it is the crucial representation of how badly the studios took care of their films in the early days of motion pictures. Lon Chaney was without a doubt one of the best actors who ever lived and yet less than 50% of his filmography is left to judge him with. If you want London After Midnight to be found donate to film preservation programs. I hope and pray that London After Midnight is found in some dusty old attic one day but until then this is what we have and I applaud TCM for trying to satisfy the fans who mourn the loss of burnt nitrate from MGM;s vault 7.


Restaurant takes on a lot, and succeeds. Various story lines are carefully interwoven as the film takes on issues of race relations and day-to-day life in small town NJ. Genuinely humorous throughout, "Restaurant' is a beautifully written tale of twenty-something artists struggling to grow up. Adrien Brody and Elise Neal co-star in their roles as interracial lovers, and put similar relationships depicted in movies such as "Jungle Fever" to shame. Supported by a cast of top-notch actors, what could be a lot to take on in the confines of one film ends up feeling like the perfect mix of elements. "Restaurant" is a touching, heartfelt rendition of the lives of young artists working to overcome the confines of their 9 to 5 jobs.


This one is in a rare but important tradition of movies based on real storytelling. The characters are fleshed out and warm, and the story is satisfyingly complex.

You don't have to be from Hoboken to love this flick, but if you are from Hoboken, you will. I recommend this one heartily.


"Restaurant" is your basic boy-meets-girl movie, with emphasis on "basic" - it operates on autopilot throughout. It has the basic feel of a made-for-TV schmaltzfest, and it handles racial issues with the same level of intellectual vigor.

The main character of "Restaurant", a playwright who considers his work "beyond great" (what we see of it looks pretty silly and shallow), finds himself unable to finish his most recent production. I can only assume this was semi-autobiographical, since this movie has no clear ending in sight throughout, and the ending it does bring about for us is clumsy and completely incongruous with the rest of the story.


There is not much to say about this except to warn other people not to waste their money on it. The story-telling and the directing was so obnoxious. It was a total no-brainer. A duh..movie that only hit my vagal nerve and made me nauseous. There is a long time since I have walked out of a movie but this one made it. Better luck to the actors and producers next time.


There has been criticism of this movie as being dull and unrealistic (probably from someone who wasn't even born before the events depicted in the movie). Believe this: it shows things pretty much as they happened. Lancaster was never better. I recommend it without reservation.


Burt Lancaster turns in a fine performance as a US military advisor who has doubts about the wisdom of the war America is about to embark upon. GO TELL THE SPARTANS looks at Vietnam in 1964, before the conflict there was thoroughly Americanized. It is not your typical glossy, overproduced Hollywood action extravaganza. Nor is it overly laden with patriotic sentimentality. It is, rather, a compelling exploration of the hubris and naivete that shaped the American war effort.


To anyone who has studied Vietnam, Go Tell The Spartans portrays it quite accurately. From the weapons of the era, the general disdain of some officers over our involvement, to the psychological effects on the soldiers themselves, this movie succeeds in each department. Burt Lancaster does an excellent job of portraying the hard-boiled Major Barker, and is backed by a fine cast. All the facets of the soldiers are portrayed, though often through amplified stereotypes, giving the viewer a feel for what made the soldiers tick. Drug use, libido, cowardess, heroism, concern, hatred, each of these traits find themselves embodied in one of the characters.

This isn't a feel-good film, but it did provide a few chuckles here and there. And although it doesn't come close to informing the viewer about what Vietnam was like, it tries admirably.


This is one of the best movies abut Viet Nam ever and the best about the early (fist five years) part of the war. If you thing Rambo and Delta force are what Viet Nam was about, don't watch. If you want a feel for what was going on then, watch.


This movie is one of the overlooked war movies. It tells a powerful story about how history repeats itself. The Americans find themselves falling into the same trap that the French fell into just a few years earlier. Their fears would be well founded in just a few brief years.

Burt Lancaster was great as the beleagured American Major. His fate at the end of the movie is one that every combat soldier must surely dread.

Taut direction, combined with a strong supporting cast and a literate plot makes this a must see for fans of the war movie genre. I would put it right up there with Platoon and Saving Private Ryan. A strong 3 1\2 stars.


Because of the star power and emotional power of its contemporaries -- Coming Home,The Deer Hunter, and Apocalypse Now -- Go Tell the Spartans gets little recognition. But it is truly a hidden gem. Set early in the period of American involvement in Vietnam, it gives us a more realistic portrayal of the complexities and contradictions of that war. Burt Lancaster is superb as the dedicated, yet tortured, soldier who must try to deal with a situation that he increasingly recognizes as being, at best, untenable. This film is worthy of the kind of special treatment and commentary that accompanies the "special edition" releases of quality films on DVD. No serious examination of the portrayal of Vietnam War issues in American films can overlook Go Tell the Spartans.


There aren't many movies about the beginning of America's involvement in Vietnam. It is fortunate that this is one of those film. Burt Lancaster is perfect as a career Army officer who recognizes early on that this war will be different from any other...and that American power may not be enough to win it. "Beastmaster" Marc Singer is wonderful as a shallow young officer so wrapped up in the boost Vietnam is going to give his career that he is immune to the madness around him. The scene in which Lancaster explains to Singer why, after three wars and a bucket full of medals, he (Lancaster) is still only a major, is priceless. Craig Wasson's portrayal of an idealistic draftee who progresses from caring about the Vietnamese, to accepting the brutality they perpetrate on each other is a chillingly accurate metaphor for the shift in American attitudes to come. Perhaps the film's best performance is by Jonathan Goldsmith, as a career NCO for whom the insanity finally becomes too much. The haunting score by Dick (Blood, Sweat & Tears) Halligan is a perfect accompaniment.


This exceptional, totally deromanticized and unjustly forgotten knockout got undeservedly lost in the shuffle in the late 70's when it had the grave misfortune to come out around the same time as such more widely recognized 'Nam features "The Deer Hunter," "Coming Home," and "Apocalpyse Now." The film depicts the early stage of the war circa 1964, when American troops where initially sent over strictly as "military advisers." Burt Lancaster gives one of his finest, grittiest and most appealingly ragged performances as a rugged, irascible, foul-mouthed major in charge of a ragtag army base who's beginning to have serious misgivings about America's involvement in the war. Equally crackerjack characterizations are contributed by Craig Wasson as a naive, soft-hearted raw recruit with romantic notions about the glory of war who quickly learns that war itself is an intrinsically ugly and unfair thing, Joe Unger as a foolishly gung-ho corporal, Jonathan Goldsmith as a frazzled, alcoholic, battle weary combat vet, Dennis Howard as an oblivious to the world dope-head, an especially chilling Evan Kim as brutish, bloodthirsty South Vietnamese mercenary Cowboy, Marc Singer in his film debut as Lancaster's loyal, yet cynical aide-de-camp, Dolph Sweet as Lancaster's stern, overbearing, overconfident superior, and James Hong as a helpful elderly villager.

Ted Post's strong, precise, tough-minded direction, ably packed up by Harry Stradling, Jr.'s crisp, skillful cinematography and Dick Halligan's tense, shuddery, moody score, injects a genuine heart-rending sense of loss and anguish into the grim proceedings, therefor adding the right element of roughhewn authenticity to the movie to make it poignant and convincing. Wendell Mayes' sterling script -- it's profane, dryly perceptive and often sardonically funny, with a laudably obdurate refusal to resort to either cheap macho heroics or mushy patriotic sentiment which goes a long way in explaining exactly why it spent seven years languishing on a shelf before third-tier studio Avco Embassy finally decided to make it into a movie -- spells out the savage, upsetting reality of war in very stark, bleak and no uncertain terms: It's nothing more than a horrendous, chaotic, futile ordeal in which the participants do their utmost to stay alive and intact under circumstances of ever-increasing severity. An absolute powerhouse.


Though operating on a meager budget, this is a film that says more about the frustrations of the Vietnam war then almost any of it's extravagently budgeted brethren. It is an excellent preview of the coming involvement of American troops and the futility and waste of fighting a limited war.


This is the absolute best movie about the first five years (1959-1964) of the American involvement in Viet Nam ever made. If you want excitement and fiction, watch Rambo or Chuck Norris. If you want to see how it was (or as close as Hollywood gets to it), watch Go Tell the Spartans. People should understand that most war involvement consists largely of waiting and fighting - often a lot more waiting than fighting...


Director Ted Post is incredibly talented when it comes to telling the audience a captivating story. His characters are believable and he helps create one of Burt Lancaster's finest performances. The story is told in a very entertaining and well-paced fashion while sustaining a feeling of tension. This film never received the attention it deserved when originally released. It's really worth your while and I hope when people see it in a video store they'll consider giving it a chance. It is definitely one of the most realistic and gripping accounts of the war in Vietnam. Ted Post proves to be a very talented director especially in the way he directs his actors. He manages to get great performances out of his entire cast (not only some of the stars). I highly recommend this film and hope that more people will appreciate the way I do.


I was in the military in the late 60s, but I did not go to Vietnam. I watched this with a friend of my age who was there as an Army corporal for two years. He gave the film high marks for accuracy. Lancaster was excellent in portraying the skepticism of career military officers about our involvement. The scene where he must go and plead with the corrupt South Vietnamese officer is especially telling. The "cowboy" character was well conceived. Unlike another reviewer, I did not see the Wasson character becoming totally callous. In fact his last line about just wanting "to go home now" (spoken to the spectral Viet Cong in the mist after the battle) shows his disillusion with the war.


"Spartans" superbly demonstrates the problems American advisors encountered in Vietnam before the United States escalated its involvement. In an attempt to explain the eventual failure of America's effort, this movie reveals the inherent difficulties of fighting a guerrilla war in a foreign country.

This movie offers good characters, especially Burt Lancaster as Major Asa Baker.


GO AND TELL THE SPARTANS was shot on a budget of barely $1MM just outside of LA. $250K had to be lent to director Ted Post by Burt Lancaster to get the film completed after the producer seems to have had trouble accounting for it. Then just after the NY Film Critics gave the film their coveted award for the year, its distributer went bankrupt, killing the tiny promotion budget, and the film was pulled. Nonetheless GTTS is a masterpiece.

Burt Lancaster plays a highly decorated major who will never be promoted for reasons that will only make sense to the perfumed princes of the Pentagon and Hillary Clinton. It is 1962 and with less than 1500 US MAAG advisors in Vietnam, Lancaster is buried in a dead end assignment deep in country that is supposed to be a"low intensity" combat zone,

After being ordered to send a green LT, some mercs and ruffpuffs and a burntout NCO on a senseless mission to a deserted former French Army camp at Muc Wa, Lancaster finds his team has created a major concentration of VC and he's going to have to go in and bring them out.

A gritty Wendell Mayes script, fine acting by a largely unknown cast and tight direction, set Lancaster's superb work in an ironic context well-suited to a time in which America still believed its Vietnam military presence was "making the world safe for democracy."

Some of the same feeling of Republic's undervalued classic--- LITTLE BIGHORN.


"Go tell it to the Spartans that here in obedience to their order we lie," ran the quote of Heroditus, the father of Western History which inspired this movie.

In a more recent time line, this film is based in part on a vignette Robin Moore told in the book version of Green Berets where American advisors bribe an ARVN (Army of the Republic of Viet Nam)officer to launch a barrage in support of a Republic of Viet Nam (RVN) outpost manned by mountagnards.

Go Tell it to the Spartans shows certain aspects of the American advisory personnel: that they became very loyal to the Vietnamese units they worked with. Robin Moore's authoritative text on the subject, not to be confused with the John Wayne movie, would seem to bear this out. Whether the loyalty extended so far as to join in a suicide mission at an outpost apparently written off, well that's hard to say.

Yet the movie is a good primer on a subject that's very difficult for most Americans to approach even today.


This film came out the year before 'Apocalypse Now', and possibly that's one reason why it's not so well known today, having been pushed out of the limelight by Coppola's monstrosity which set a disappointing trend for later Vietnam films. They became immersed in 'pop culture' (as another reviewer here notes) rather than having any historical or dramatic interest; 'Apocalypse Now', 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket', etc., despite their respective claims to be hard-hitting, uncompromising, gritty dramas, etc. etc., are just glamour-fests that tend at times to degenerate into little more than music videos. This film doesn't have their glitz, and it certainly has its own faults, but on the whole it's more thought-provoking and interesting. The early-war (indeed, technically, 'pre-war') setting allows for reflection on just what a mess the Americans were gradually getting themselves sucked into, and its effects on the officers and soldiers who were sent out into the jungle without being told quite what they were actually supposed to be doing there.


***There are Spoilers*** Based on the 1967 Daniel Ford novel "Incident at Muc Wa" the movie "Go Tell the Spartans" shows how the US got slowly drawn into the disastrous Vietnam War in thinking it was both winnable and a noble cause when it fact, as history has shown us, it was anything but.

The film starts in that fateful summer of 1964 when the US Military had only an advisory involvement in helping the South Vietnamese Government in its war against the insurgent Communist Vietcong, known as Charlie to the GI's, who were overrunning the country. Maj. Asa Barker, Burt Lancaster, who had served his country in two previous wars, WWII & Korea, is in charge of a South Vietnamese outpost in the Mekong River Delta that's surrounded by hundreds of Vietcong irregulars. The Major is desperately short of both men and ammunition to hold off the Vietcong who are trying cut off his supply lines and then overrun his weakly defended outpost.

With the handful of men, both US GI's and local RVN troops, at his disposable Maj. Barker knows that it's only a matter of time before the determined and tenacious Vietcong will achieve their objective. The GI's at the outpost are either green recruits, one being a draftee, or burned out veterans who, despite their superiority in air and fire power, are in no way any match for the seasoned battle hardened Vietcong. The one thing that both Maj. Barker and his Vietnamese interpreter Cowboy, Even C. Kim, knows is that the fight is not only with the Vietcong but most of the Vietnamese population in that area who are not only sympathetic towards the enemy but are in fact the enemy-Vietcong-itself!

***SPOILERS*** We get to see in the movie just how totally unprepared the US was in fighting the war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people in the persons of both high and ethically minded Lt. Hamilton, Joe Unger, and Cpl. Courcey, Craig Wesson. It was their high-mindedness, unlike Maj. Barker and Cowboys pragmatic common sense, that lead to the disastrous results that was to soon follow in the movie!

One of the best Vietnam War films ever made and at the same time one of the most overlooked. The fact that "Go Tell the Spartans" was made-three years after the war ended-when the wounds of the Vietnam War were barley healed had the movie going Amercan public in no mood to go see it. Even though the film was about as accurate as a description of why and how we got involved in that disastrous war, against the sound advice of men like Maj, Barker, as any movie about the subject that's ever been released! Before and after the Vietnam War ended!

Burt Lancaster loved the script so much that he contributed $150,000.00 out of his own pocket to finance "Go Tell the Spartans" when it's budget ran out with a couple days left to be filmed. Lancaster also disregarded a serious knee injury he suffered in order for him to star in the movie which had him limping all throughout the film!


For some reason, I hadn't seen this film before. I was in the army from 67-70 (did not go to Vietnam) and have read, written, and watched films about that time ever since. Burt Lancaster was...Burt Lancaster. He had some great lines, but I agree with the reviewer who commented on his age being a bit of a distraction. But the story more than compensated. This was when Americans in general had never heard of Vietnam. Burt's amazement that a draftee would be there spoke volumes about how early in our engagement this was. Yet, there were engagements. The US military was actively supporting the south Vietnamese, including fighting battles on the ground and giving air support. The ensemble cast felt like a stereotypical war movie cast, but the lighter dialogue in the first half of the film starts to give way to the seriousness of the situation. And finally, by the end of the film's "second act" it takes on more of an "alamo" feeling.

Burt's character's cynicism, plus the viewers' historical knowledge of how things turned out for the US military in Vietnam, makes for some powerful moments. It also leads me to consider this an anti-war film. Because in the end, what did all the soldiers who died in the movie die for? As Burt's Major tells the hung-ho captain, this isn't like world war II. This one is just running us in circles. He knew the score in 1964, but unfortunately it was generals like Dolph Sweet's character who drove the policies that LBJ followed that resulted in so many more needless deaths.


In a recent biography of Burt Lancaster, Go Tell The Spartans is described as the best Vietnam war film that nobody ever saw. Hopefully with television and video products that will be corrected.

I prefer to think of it as a prequel to Platoon. This film is set in 1964 when America's participation was limited to advisers by this time raised to about 20,000 of them by President Kennedy. Whether if Kennedy had lived and won a second term he would have increased our commitment to a half a million men as Lyndon Johnson did is open to much historical speculation.

Major Burt Lancaster heads such an advisory team with his number two Captain Marc Singer. They get some replacements and a new assignment to build a fortress where the French tried years ago and failed.

The replacements are a really mixed bag, a sergeant who Lancaster has served with before and respects highly in Jonathan Goldsmith, a very green and eager second lieutenant in Joe Unger, a demolitions man who is a draftee and at that time Vietnam service was a strictly volunteer thing in Craig Wasson, and a medic who is also a junkie in Dennis Howard. For one reason or another all of these get sent forward to build that outpost in a place that suddenly has acquired military significance.

I said before this could be a prequel to Platoon. Platoon is set in the time a few years later when the USA was fully militarily committed in Vietnam. Platoon raises the same issues about the futility of that war, but I think Go Tell The Spartans does a much better job. Hard to bring your best effort into the fight since who and what you're fighting and fighting for seems to change weekly.

Originally this project was for William Holden and I'm surprised Holden passed on it. Maybe for the better because Lancaster strikes just the right note as the professional soldier in what was a backwater assignment who politics has passed over for promotion. Knowing all that you will understand why Lancaster makes the final decision he does.

Two others of note are Evan Kim who is the head of the South Vietnamese regulars and interpreter who Lancaster and company are training. He epitomizes the brutality of the struggle for us in a way that we can't appreciate from the other side because we never meet any of the Viet Cong by name. Dolph Sweet plays the general in charge of the American Vietnam commitment, a General Harnitz. He is closest to a real character because the general in charge their before Johnson raised the troop levels and put in William Westmoreland was Paul Harkins.

Joe Unger is who I think gives the best performance as the shavetail lieutenant with all the conventional ideas of war and believes we have got to be with the good guys since we are Americans. He learns fast that you issue uniforms for a reason and wars against people who don't have them are the most difficult.

I think one could get a deep understanding of just what America faced in 1964 in Vietnam by watching Go Tell The Spartans.


As one who served as an MACV adviser (1965) and later in the infantry in Vietnam (1966), I can only echo those that say this is the best Vietnam film ever made. The cast is excellent. Johnathan Goldsmith was right on with his burnt out NCO portrayal. The overall tone of the film was perfect. This film had no political ax to grind and showed the situation we found ourselves in on a daily basis. No other film about Vietnam comes close to the truth as this one does. Burt Lancaster's best performance since "7 Days in May". Ted Post was never given the credit he richly deserves for his direction. Craig Wasson showed what a "rookie" was up against being thrown into an overwhelming spot. Everyone looked the part of a MACV adviser. I can speak to that from the position of: "Been there, done that, got the T shirt"


Compared with many war films that covered America's involvement with Vietnam, "Go Tell the Spartans' didn't set the world alight due to its very understated style and low-scale resources, but because of centering towards a steady character/situation driven story, it remained an thoughtfully harrowing and toughly grim account showing that there were no heroes, or anything to gain from this war. Leading the way is the commanding presence of Burt Lancaster's inspired performance barking out his dialogue, but holding a truly genuine rapport with his mainly unprepared soldiers. He's not in it for pride, as his knows this isn't the place for it.

Vietnam, 1964. American forces haven't been fully deployed into the Vietnamese jungles yet, but Major Asa Barker is assigned to set up a barricade at an abandoned post at Muc Wa (where 10 years earlier 302 French soldiers were massacred by the Viet Cong), but at his disposal is only a few American soldiers and ragtag bunch of Vietnamese volunteer soldiers. Soon making there presence known, the motley crew come up against overwhelming odds to hold the barricade.

Directed by Ted Post (who noticeably helm Clint Eastwood in 'Hang Em' High' and 'Magnum Force'... plus made the weird horror 'The Baby'), it's tautly handled in very candid, no-frills way. This forthrightly grounded touch, lend it to having some almost TV-like qualities (like the mechanical camera-work and spotty editing) but on the other hand it gave it true grit and an imitate cloud that stamped in a realistically raw air. This meant the dramas (psychological/psychical) while there (and this is a fairly laborious and talkative film confronting the issues of war and politics), were never overdone or overly milked, but still having enough kick to leave an impression. I read some complaints about it being flat or lacking emotion but I thought it did enough questioning the naïve involvement (doubts outweighing the for) and the state of mind of their soldiers (looking at misguided obligations). Wendell Mayes' hardened script (who adapted the screenplay from Daniel Ford's 'Incident at Muc Wa') is precisely stimulating in its text be it personal or tactical, but also worked in is some welcoming humor. Outside of Lancaster, there are solidly humane and rounded performances from the cast in the likes of David Clennon, Jonathan Goldsmith, Joe Unger, Dennis Howard, Dennis Howard, Craig Wasson, Dolph Sweet, James Hong and Marc Singer. The literary is heavy, but the roughly rampaging action (intense firefights) might only be minor, still it's staged with excellent ferocity and alertness that it becomes like a disorienting blur (definitely the night sequences) amongst the harshly authentic surrounding terrain. You can feel its setting itself up for a big one, and when it happens the 'you know what' really hit's the fan.

Despite the cheap origins 'Go Tell The Spartans' is an accomplished effort deserving a lot more merit, both meaningful and scathing without being pushy in its text, but also visuals.


Burt Lancaster plays a major during the Vietnam war when he was actually 65 years old and his age is impressed upon you in the first scene as he scrambles through the wire. His obvious age demands such a suspension of belief that it is difficult to focus on the movie. He makes a comment that he was once the General's commander so obviously got into trouble and was passed over for promotion in an attempt to "Explain away" the glaring visual age dysynchrony. But if he was a screwup at the rank of major he would have had his twenty years in and been discharged after being passed over for Lieutenant Colonel. I am sure the technical adviser pointed this out but hey they had Burt Lancaster starring. I was a major equivalent during the Vietnam War (US NAVY LCDR)and was 29 years old as were many of my peers + or - a couple of years so maybe it's not a problem with the non-military knowledgeable viewer.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The plot is completely unrealistic. These events are far from the truth and Burt Lancaster is a disgrace. Don't waste your time watching this movie, watching grass grow is much more exciting!


A real must see. This documentary lays down facts, figures, and themes regarding the state of the planet in a very accessible way. As a previous reviewer said, it is more "intense" than an Inconvenient Truth, but I hardly think any of the concepts presented are hard to take in - in fact, due to the number of interviews, the film manages to take the viewer through a range of issues regarding the state of the planet, without ever losing focus of its basic message - that we must do something NOW. A well put together soundtrack enhances the narrative. Well worth the watch. But god, we've really stuffed this planet up.


Al Gore did the cerebral - lecturing us like a bunch of college freshmen.

Now Johan Söderberg gives us heart and soul: frankly an absorbing and confronting multimedia experience. This piece deserves some serious awards for the powerful blend of images, music and ideas. I watched it on a Linux box with stereo TV capability, taking live broadcast TV to a tiny 17" monitor screen.

The audio quality was great, but for maximum impact the stunning visuals need to be seen on a bigger screen, preferably in DVD picture quality.

I plan to get the DVD and lend it to as many people as possible. It really should get a run in the high street cinemas, IMO.

The next paragraph is a quote from the film. It was the real punch-line for me, but when you hear it in context, it has much more force (therefore: not really a spoiler, more of an appetizer!)

"There is a profound human fear - even terror - of destroying the human habitat - with our own technology, by our own hand, and to no purpose." - Robert Jay Lifton, Psychiatrist.


The Planet is an interesting summary of today's environmental problem, covering such topics as global warming, but also less well known topics (albeit still very important) such as resource exploitation and waste management.

Unlike An Inconvenient Truth this movie is based on many interviews with various experts in the fields shown in the movie. Between the interviews we are shown interesting footage of the topic discussed, for example on resource exploitation you might see modern agriculture at work. The mood of the movie is also set by rather dramatic music, which clearly emphases that these issues are important and have to be taken seriously.

The movie is not only about experts telling us about the situation today, but you also get to see "normal" people that have an opinion about the subjects in the movie, like the Chinese businessman and his take on resource exploitation as well as global warming or why not the workers from waste centers in Nigeria.

All in all this movie covers many interesting topics in a dramatical way. This dramatical tone is also what drags the movie down somewhat, as it can be too intense and too much to swallow, particularly if the topic's are new to you. Compared to Gore's An Inconvenient Truth the tone here is a lot darker and intense.

8/10 + great and interesting info, educational - a bit too dramatic and intense


The Planet is a Scandinavian production (2006) directed by Johan Söderberg which draws on the cinematographic techniques of nonverbal films such as Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, and Ron Fricke's Baraka.

Unlike those films, which are purely visual, The Planet is riddled with a plethora of interviews from leading scientists and environmentalists offering their perspectives on the challenges humanity faces in the 21st century.

The music that envelops the movie does a very good job at matching it's general mood . Short video and sounds clips are used throughout as punctuation, which is often reminiscent of a cartoon-like storyline.


This film is a masterpiece. The Planet doesn't shy away from the real issue at hand, unlike so many other films of this nature. Without giving too much away, this film is very balanced; not overly optimistic, yet not too pessimistic either. Also strikingly different from other movies of the sort is how many cultures are explored, from first world countries to developing nations. Yet, it never loses the focus of the message presented early on in the film--that we have a time frame in which we must act in order to prevent further, more severe consequences than have already appeared.

That being said, the cinematography in this film is exceptional. The scenes were gorgeously shot, and the careful editing really captures the scale of the issue, from the smallest insects to the entire globe. Perhaps most noticeable is how well the soundtrack (of a very electronic nature) flows with the visuals. There is one scene that combines the music with the scene (you'll know it when you see it) so well I would have purchased a ticket to see it alone.

The Planet is not to be missed.


There was a lot of information in this documentary. None of it is very pleasant, unfortunately, but it is vitally important that more people get to see shows like this to really bring across the dire state of the world as we know it. The film cleverly and clearly explains many aspects of why the world is in trouble while allowing that we do still have time to stop the worst happening IF WE CHANGE NOW. It is not all total gloom and doom. There are people who are trying to get the right message across and there are things that can be done to reduce our impact, but we all need to reduce our toxic emissions, reduce our consumption of unnecessary goods and plant trees and gardens. It was great to hear an explanation of how the environment provides many free services to humans - services we take for granted but which are being damaged and used up; such as free provision of oxygen, soils, animals, medicines (and many more)- all things that are getting spoilt by our greed and pollution.I'm pretty aware of a lot of environmental problems but there were a few things in this film that surprised me. If you get the chance, watch this excellent film. The soundtrack and the visual style is interesting too, so it helps you relax a little while being shocked.


Le Libertin, is a French farce about the famous Enlightenment philosopher, Denis Diderot, and his attempts to hide his wickedly atheistic encyclopedia from the church until its completion. This movie is, on the surface, a bawdy, sexy, perverse farce. But beneath this surface, there is more bawd, sex, perversion and farce. But beneath that, there is genuine genius here, the dialogue, humour, acting, eroticism and, most of all, the send-up of the church (it's a shame Islam cannot be so mocked, for Islam now is as insidious as the Church was in the 1700's) is a sheer delight. There is real philosophy here too, not particularly deep, but a millionfold more witty than anything produced by The Matrix movies. 10/10, loved it!


The film starts with a bawdy song unmistakably naughty and then follows ever so much suggestive but clever dialogue. There is wicked and mischievous goings-on in and around a beautiful home on the road between Paris and Avignon. This is where Denis Diderot (Vincent Perez) is compiling and printing his banned multi-volume encyclopaedia. My goodness! I had no idea that a 17th Century philosopher could have so much fun putting into print some of his thoughts and experiences. "If it's natural" he says "It must be good for you". He not only says it, but practises it, and no woman seems safe from his ardent approaches.

Amongst all the farcical nonsense, there is some heavy satire on the church's attitude to sex. exotic foods such as chocolate and caviare, musical scores (the pig organ is a delight) and banned literature. Vincent Perez as Diderot plays the character superbly wearing a delightful smile though not much else when he poses for his portrait by the beautiful Madame Therbouche, a so-called painter from Berlin though actually a spy arranged by the Cardinal. Her mission is to locate the clandestine printing presses.

There is plenty of action in the film (and never a dull moment) as Diderot prances naked around the surrounding gardens much to the disgust of the Cardinal. Much of the action is around the Cardinal who must be prevented from finding the printing presses. This is easily arranged by recruiting as many ladies as possible to seek confession of their sins before the Cardinal. Besides attending to his clerical duties, he seems not uninterested in their wickedness.

Finally Diderot falls in love with Madame Therbouche as he seeks her assistance in the preparation of Volume X111. She agrees of course and why not? The last volume is to be all about sensuality, a subject in which both of them are so well versed.

An absolute delight!


Firstly, some reviewer has claimed the events of the movie are dated to 1789. It is wrong. By that time Diderot was already dead (1713-1784). The year 1789 appears in the beginning of the movie as a date of French revolution to which Diderot was a kind of forerunner. The right dating seems to be 1750's, when Diderot should have been about his 40, as it comes also from his daughter age and from Boucher's painting, which the company views during the sideshow in the end of the movie. This painting was executed in about 1752.

Now despite all these historical correspondences, the viewer must understand - this movie is not about Diderot's real life, it is a fantasy, which includes personage named Denis Diderot, who in some instances has some common features with historical person Denis Diderot.

Now, when you come to see the movie, try to forget all you know (if you do) about the real Diderot and just enjoy the jokes, the funny situations and delightful absurdities of the movie. If you'll do this, you will really love the film. To some sever judges I would suggest reading Rabelais. Humor is a special genre, with its special rules and demands, and most important, with a lot of very diverse faces. You can not evaluate it departing from your personal ideology, philosophy or whatever, you should concern it in its own terms and believe me, such are exist.

Le Libertin is a light and wonderfully filmed comedy. It leaves you with a kind smile on your lips when the last frame makes its place to titles and a strong wish to watch it again immediately.

The cast is incredible, especially Fanny Ardant who (as she always do) manages to create truly complex personage.

Nudity is natural, not hidden, not shaming - in a painful contrast with puritan Hollywood. The same is true regarding the matters of sexuality.

Gabriel Aghion made a good job, and thanks to Le Libertin, Pédale Douce and Belle Maman I am ready to forget his disastrous Pédale Dure.

Really recommended to anyone who is ready to open his mind to things that may be not exactly of his style.


This is a wonderful film. It's a shame it is so difficult to see here in the US. I had to go to great lengths to first obtain a PAL copy from France that has no English subtitles, download a subtitle file online, and then use 3 different programs to rip the DVD, process the video and add subtitles, and then burn it to a DVD I could watch on my TV. But it was worth it. It is fun satire on morals and religion that reminded me a bit of the even more wonderful SIRENS. Given the subject matter and frequent full-frontal nudity both male and female, it is no wonder it has had little or no exposure (no pun intended) here in the puritanical USA. I have to admit, I was mostly interested in this film because of Audrey Tautou. Her screen time is very short, but for about half that time she is nude...and a glorious sight it is too. But I'm glad it turned out to have so much more going for it. Highly recommended... if you can understand French or have the ability to make your own subtitles.


What a great film. Vincent Perez was fabulous as Diderot. I really liked this movie and would recommend it to anyone that is a fan of Vincent Perez and who also likes good French films. I have watched Perez's performance in other films and find he is such a great actor. This film had great acting, great photography, witty dialogue and good casting. The costuming was also really good, with an accurate portrayal of what society would wear in that time period. I really don't want to give away any of the story line so I will stop now, but to all fans of Vincent Perez. Go and see this film. Another note, I also really liked the music used in the film, it portrayed the wittiness of the dialogue.


It is quite important to remember when watching comedies that humor is a very personal thing.

If you are offended by vulgarity; if you hate Benny Hill, and can't see the fun of Barbara Windsor's bikini popping off; and think that concept that breasts have nipples is outrageous; if you think broad humor is a pointless waste of time then this really is not the film for you.

If you thought that France = sophistication, therefore this must be high-brow: then I simply suggest that you get out a bit more.

But if you had read the packet before you watched it you would already know this.

This film is a 'diversion'. A farce. An enjoyment. Treat it as such and you'll be rewarded.


A French film set in France in 1789 when the encyclopedia was banned. This was a historical comedy filled with sex, religion and frontal nudity! It was about a man named Denis Diderot (Vincent Perez) who was the creator of the encyclopedia. His wife, Madame Diderot (Francoise Lepine) and his daughter Angelique Diderot (Vahina Giocante). And Audrey Tautou starred as Julie d'Holbach.

This movie was filled with extremely funny moments, the funniest ones were; the "Pig Organ", they were pulled by their tails to create a melody. I was impressed with that. Next, was when Diderot got a boner when seeing Madame Therbouche (Fanny Ardant) while she was painting a portrait of him naked. " Growing start of steadfastness". A cute scene with Baronne d'Holbach (Josiane Balasko) walking her pet pig on a leash and it was dressed up. And lastly, an Adam and Eve scene with Mr Diderot chasing his wife around the garden naked with the Baroness and Le cardinal (Michel Sarrault), the very dramatic one watching.And then, the Cardinal sniffed table salts and the Baroness says:" I feel queasy! I need fresh air!" HA!HA!HA!

There was a terrible scene with the Baroness's pig cooked up as a lunch and she replaced her pig a canary. SHAME! There were also some LOVELY things to see in this film like, the Turkish baths and messages. Beautiful. And the party thrown for the Cardinal with dance music, fire works and wine. Quite something. And at the end, Diderot FELL IN LOVE WITH MADAME THERBOUCHE!!! Uh-oh!

It's lovely to see, hear and have conversations in French. Fun movie! With dance music!


This movie is meant to be a comedy, but won't even make you smile.

It is vulgar, not funny at all. I am still wondering how stars like Vincent Perez and Michel Serrault could make such a poor movie. The dialogues are not as witty as one might expect. One of the characters ends up stark naked in public and even that is not funny.

One might want to compare this movie to other French historical comedies. If you want to see the difference, try to get hold of "Beaumarchais, l'Insolent" or "Ridicule", these are truly good comedies with a number of French stars.

If you want to have an idea of how bad Le Libertin is, just check how many second hand DVD copies are sold on the internet and for what prices. A couple of bucks would buy you a brand new copy. At least you could use the DVD case for some other better movie.


This movie had the potential to be so much more with such an ensemble cast and premise. Unfortunately, from the first minutes of the movie onward, it becomes quickly self-evident that the movie is a pretentious and failed attempt at trying to be a smart comedy.

The acting was over the top, the dialog mediocre and the characters unbelievable. The humour used in the movie was only successful in a rare few instances. Mostly it just falls short of being funny and quickly becomes just plain annoying. And that's without going into the contrived twists and turns of the plot. The closing credits were a welcome relief to a very disappointing movie.


Many persons advised me against this movie and I didn't want to believe them. But they were right! It is a very stupid movie. The subject was interesting so it could have been better. Most actors are very notable but they look so ridiculous in it. Gabriel Aghion made better films (like the excellent 'Pedale douce' one the best French comedies of all times)!


I went into A Perfect Murder expecting to enjoy it, but I recognised the fact that I wouldn't be in for a great film. To be honest, I love thrillers like this as they offer a solid two hours (or so) of non-too taxing entertainment, and what's not to like about that? A Perfect Murder is an update of the Hitchcock classic 'Dial M For Murder', and while the film doesn't touch Hitchcock's in terms of how thrilling it is, this update has been well handled and despite losing things such as the claustrophobia and the tight plot, A Perfect Murder still does what you'd expect it to do. The plot has become more expansive for this update, but the filmmakers have still managed to keep it tight so that the plot is focused mainly on the characters as opposed to the actual crime. The plot follows a rich man (Michael Douglas) who discovers that his trophy wife (Gweneth Paltrow) is having an affair with an artist (Viggo Mortensen). When his business affairs start to go awry, he decides to commit the perfect murder so that he can inherit his wife's trust fund. However, as all of us Hitchcock fans know; there's no such thing as the perfect murder.

Michael Douglas was the absolute perfect choice for this role. He may get typecast as the slimy businessman often, but he does it so well! You can really believe that he wants to kill his wife. Gweneth Paltrow, who is often solid but never outstanding; and Viggo Mortensen, who is actually a good actor, join him and make up the three-piece central cast. Mortensen's performance here isn't awesome; but it's good, and hints at the sort of stuff that would be to come - such as a great turn in David Cronenberg's A History of Violence. Like most nineties thrillers, this one is very stylishly shot and there's a focus on the more steamy elements of the story. The locations used aptly convey the groups within society that the characters belong to and the film does a good job of setting its scenes. The central set piece is well executed, and the build up to it is well done also; but it has to be said that the film starts to fall apart a little after that. Still, A Perfect Murder never becomes boring and even during it's down time; the film still manages to be thrilling. As mentioned, this isn't as great as Hitchcock's version - but as modern remakes go - this certainly isn't a bad one, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good thriller.


I actually liked this movie, but the ending was bad.

Summary: Steven Taylor and Emily have been married for quite some time yet Emily feels trapped and controlled by Steven so she seeks comfort in the arms of David, a broke artist with a hidden past. Steven knows about the affair yet Emily has no idea that he knows. Steven approaches David and lets him know that he knows everything about David's past and then blackmails him. He pays 100 grand and tells David he will pay another 400 grand after the job is done. What job? Oh, for killing Emily, his wife. David accepts and Steven tells him how to murder Emily and it sounds flawless until Emily manages to kill the intruder in her home and at Steven's surprise, it's not David!

In such cases as these where rich people get married, I understand why there should be a pre-nuptial agreement! The movie is a great thriller yet it lacks....something. Viggo Mortensen was David, the lover who does love Emily but loves money more. Michael Douglas, the loving yet control freak husband Steven, whose empire is falling apart and the only option he has is to kill his wife played by Gwyneth Paltrow, who works for the UN, speaks a few languages but is dumb as a doorbell when it comes to the men in her life.

I rate this 7/10, the movie has lots of great twists and so on, but I saw only Michael Douglas making a real effort in this movie. Viggo was great too, but Gwyneth seems so confused through out this movie.


A Perfect Murder ( a loose remake of Dial M for Murder ) is a

stylish thriller in its own right ,but doesn't come close to the

original. As I remember and not to give away any of the plot, Dial

M' is all about the key. Where it is hidden, Who knew it was there,

and who finds it. This plot line is gripping, but in Perfect Murder'

this whole part of the story has been overlooked. Having said that

the film still works quite well, thanks to Michael Douglas. He really

is superb. Gwyneth Palthrow looks stunning, but David Suchet is

wasted as the detective. But where the film really falls down is the

ending. In the original the last scenes are gripping in the hunt for

the key, but for some reason director Andrew Davis sees fit to end

with the standard formula of a shoot out. Having said that the film

is still worth seeing, but if you need to watch this story, I

recommend the original.