"7 Seconds" was a goofy film. Of course it's full of clichés and stupid one-liners, but there's a lot of action and charm to spare. It's way better than "Unstoppable". Wesley Snipes plays Jack Tulliver, a thief who inadvertently steals an expensive Van Gogh painting. Now tons of gangsters are after him: dead or alive. Wesley Snipes was great as usual as the wise-cracking hero. The first car chase was a ton of fun and the action-packed climax was very cool. I'm surprised this went DTV. Wesley is too good for that fate. If he does another drama in the vein of "Disappearing Acts" and lay low on the action films, he can be on top again.


This is clearly the worst Wesley Snipes movie I have ever seen. And I have to say I was sorry that they didn't do better because it was shot in my country and I was looking forward to what they had done. It was also disappointing that in the car chase they took advantage of the fact that most people in this world don't know how Bucharest looks like and they had no continuity in the route they used. Every street or boulevard was in a different part of the city, even though the scene looked like the streets came one after another. The only thing I liked was that they used "Club Twice" (the club of one of the characters) in the movie, and that is one of my favorite clubs. If you're from Bucharest and you want to see how they used the place watch it. If you're not from Bucharest but still want to see how they used the place watch it. Otherwise don't waste you're time. P.S.: At least they didn't put vampires in the movie. It would have been to much, even for Romania.


Awful movie, car chase sucks. Ty, have you seen "Ronin", now thát's a car chase. This movie has nothing to do with that. Cars are driving around doing 20 mph and you call that "a ton of fun"? This action-packed climax has over 20 Opel Calibra's chasing around Bukarest and every time Wesley hits a police car, I don't know, he gains extra credits or something. He hits a police car and voilá, out of nowhere he has his front bumper back again in pristine condition. Editing is even worse. The end is way to sudden, and so not believable. Dialogs are the worst. I have no words for that. Just don't bother. Waste of your time.

Sorry Wesley, I like you, but this is killing your career. STOP IT!!


A sloppy, poor STV actioner with an aging Wesley Snipes as a disgraced Special Ops turned armored car robber. He ends up with more than he bargained for after his latest heist, a briefcase containing a $65 million Van Gogh painting that may or may not be real. But it is real enough to its owner, who wants it back at any cost. Filmed in Romania on the cheap with an "international" cast, the film looks good and has a terrific stunt car sequence at the beginning that really needed to be closer to the end, as nothing else that exciting happens anywhere else in the flick. Snipes is the only name actor. Badly edited, with lots of characters we don't really get to know or care for.


This film was really let down by bad direction. As well as all the inconsistencies; the car appearing less damaged the more it was hit, the pitiful attempt to add gunfire sound effects to Wesley's gun, etc. I thought also that the director was getting a little too experimental. After the first car chase the camera inverts for no reason i can guess at. Lots of cut-scenes toward the beginning of the film didn't really serve a purpose. When I see a film advertised with actors of Wesley Snipes calibre i expect good quality direction. The director of this film should leave his experimenting for film school, or at least for before the movie is filmed. Romania is a place I am interested in, a little different, maybe a bit exotic. The setting here never really developed. I didn't see anything in this film to suggest that it wasn't filmed in a studio, apart from a short clip of the city at night. If you want action and don't plan to be too sober, give it a go. If you want a film with soul, forget it. Nothing to get your teeth into here.


On my, oh my, where has the promising career of Wesley Snipes gone, he mixed it up with Stallone in demolition man, played alongside Sean Connery in Rising Sun, even had his own comic book trilogy of movies, and now he's decided to muscle in on Seagal, Van Damme & Lungren territory - the straight to video market ! This film sucks in most departments, the only reason I gave it 3 stars is a few of the action scenes were decent and the ending was OK, in the sense it woke me from my comatose state that the rest of the movie put me in ! The script is so bad that actors have absolutely nothing to work with, for a 90 minute movie it drags unbelievably from one scene to the next. just when you think the storyline is going to pick up they start showing you flashbacks of scenes earlier in the movie which you've already scene a thousand times !!, Tamzin Outhwaite does OK with the little characterization she is given, apart from spitting out some cheesy cockney lines god knows where they picked up from and looking pretty she isn't asked to do much else. Wesley also does a credible job if you can call it that with this scrip, though I use the term credible lightly because he should have his head read for choosing this script ! the story line is so full of holes, and pointless narrative its a waste of time me even writing about it, as a snipes fan I watched this, and recently with the likes of Zig Zag, Undisputed and then Unstoppable coming from Wesley I was hoping for an upturn in quality, but yet again he failed me with this film, so poor I can't believe I wrote this much about it !!


The awful screenplay of "7 Seconds", which looks like a Steven Seagal movie, is so absurd and full of clichés, and has many huge holes, beginning with the selection of Wesley Snipes for the lead role. I have never been in Romania, but I believe that there are not much Afro-Americans living and circulating in Bucharest. Therefore, it would not be difficult to find Jack Tuliver in the middle of the locals. Another interesting point is the attraction of beautiful white women for his character, probably with the intention to show that Romanian and British women are not racist. In the bus station, he fights with two guys and there is no policeman in the area. There are lots of characters coming and going without any previous development or later appearance. The stupid character of the dyed Kelly Anders is ridiculous, as well as most of the dialogs along the story. The predictable plot point is very weak. Last but not the least, when an action movie does not have much story to show, usually there are lots of cars chase in the script, for the pride and joy of the stunts (there are exceptions, of course, like "Ronin", "The Blues Brothers", "The Transporter " and others). My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "7 Segundos" ("7 Seconds")


I bought this on Pay-per-View thinking that if Wesley Snipes was in it, I'd probably like it. I was wrong. First of all, I'm glad I was at home, because some of the actors mumbled so badly I had to keep adjusting the volume. It took me half the movie to even understand who was who and what exactly the plot was. But, the worst were these super annoying flashbacks, as though even the director realized that we couldn't figure out what was going on without help. The ending is totally implausible. The sound stinks. The car chase in the second half looks just like the one in the first half. The English girl says, "Didn't we do this before?" I thought...exactly! In fact, the car goes from damaged to not damaged to damaged. I don't know why they bothered to film this in Bucharest unless it is super cheap to do so. They showed us almost nothing of the place. Might as well have filmed it on a back lot somewhere. In fact, better yet if they hadn't filmed it at all. What a mess!


i would like to comment about 7 seconds with Wesley Snipes .It is an extremely poor film with no storyline a cast who have serious trouble acting. They have obviously used Wesley Snipes to push the film .He looks bored in this film and has none of his usual spark .Tamzin Outhwaite should stick to telly work she is so wooden . THe two men who play the American soldiers are truly pathetic all in all this is a film that should never have been made .I only hope Wesleys next film is better than this.Do not bother to watch this film you will only be disappointed . The film has no proper storyline and a bunch of characters who are just there for no apparent reason


Out of all the great films I've seen Wesley Snipes do, I decided to take a shot on Seven seconds and hope for the best. I shouldn't of bothered, I spent about 8 pounds sterling UK, so I guess I didn't do that badly, but lets get down to the review.

The storyline was weak, the acting quite poor and the action, lacking. When you compare 7 seconds to other great films Wesley has done, such as most notably " Blade " or " Passenger 57 ", my personal favourite " The Money Train " or " White men can't jump ", you have to wonder why he'd enter into doing something in which plot and ending was so weak.

The main part of the film, was based around am attempted crime gone wrong, something that all in all, made little to no real impact on the film. You'd expect the main storyline to be what grabs you and if that lacks, the action/acting to be at least half decent. This failed, the ending especially, weak, the usage of British Actors, if I don't say so myself was poor and if I were you, I'd stay away from this film, because if you don't and have any personal thoughts of appreciation of how great Wesley Snipes is and how he can make most films look amazing, this may just damper that.


After professional thief Jack Tulliver (Snipes) and his crew pull off a meticulously planned armoured car heist, they are ambushed by another group of thieves, who kill most of Tulliver's crew but are unable to kill Tulliver before he escapes. After carjacking Sgt. Kelly Anders' (Outhwaite) sedan, he makes a getaway, but leaves Anders under suspicion from her fellow officers. Meanwhile, Tulliver must save a team member who has been captured by a sadistic millionaire who is in charge of the group which ambushed Tulliver. All of this reveals what is in the case, and why it is under such demand. Despite action star Wesley Snipes heading the film, 7 Seconds was a failure in the DVD market which it was directly released to, and received bad reviews, described as "drivel" [1] with "sloppy screen writing"


This movie hinges on 3 things: 1} Wesley Snipes 2} Two really great car chases 3} the Bucharest backdrop.

Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu bulldozed thousands of poor peoples houses in the centre of Bucharest to make room for his megalomaniac palaces and other bloodsoaked buildings. It's no surprise that he was the only Eastern European dictator to die a violent, publicly televised execution.

But Bucharest serves very well now as a backdrop for movies, be it action or otherwise. Now that the buildings are there, they might as well be used as money-making tool for Romanian local business, and acting talent. Not that Ceauşescu's will benefit directly from this, but still ...

The movie itself is very fast paced in the beginning, and for a non-Hollywood production, read: low budget, no experience, it sure looks good. The car chases are beyond violent, and surely one of the best in filmed in Europe. Only big budget productions like French Luc Bessons bastard child Taxi comes to mind and the in France shot Ronin.

This is much harder in Europe, where there is not a abundant supply of cheap cars to be trashed, and really a lot of red tape about EU safety regulations and Landmark rules about all the monuments and stuff.

So kudos to the production dudes.

Yeah, so the acting was bad, especially the martial arts guy, but hey?! Who cares?

Cool Jamaican-Romanian rap at the end.


Sure, I sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do trust me. The only real reason everybody is hating on this film is because it's a DTV movie. But you could watch it and not know that at all because it's just about as good as other Action movies currently out there.

Now, I know Wesley Snipes has been losing most of his appeal due to questionable roles and the recent bombs "Blade: Trinity" and "Unstoppable ( A.K.A. 9 Lives )." But I saw him in this film and a film, that has yet to be released in the U.S. called "Chaos."

Anyway, this film never lets up on the thrills and is probably worth seeing for anyone into Crime Thrillers as well because this film is all about heists, car chases and back-stabbings. If you're not into that sort of thing thats been done before in "Ronin" and "Ocean's Eleven" then you won't find anything different here.

For fans of the last two films I mentioned, you might find your needs satisfied here. Director Simon Bellows uses slick video-editing and electronic music to accompanie the martial-arts and gun battles & he does a solid job w/ what he has to work with.

Beware, even though I saw this on USA cable network edited, it is still a pretty violent flick w/ suggested sex & f-bombs ( I could tell what they just said even though it was bleeped out on regular T.V.) so I recommend this for more mature viewers.

Rent it or watch it when it airs on T.V. because it's a decent hour-and-a-half of your time.


Point 1: Good action. Wasley Snipes delivers nicely. Great close combat moves. Point 2: Obviously not the biggest budget possible for this movie. And still a very good movie. Point 3: Action movies always have those unbelievable characters and actors who have been hired not so much because of how they act than what they look like and what they can do physically. No exception here. Point 4: Plot was simple and straight forward with a nice twist at the end. I'd say the script was adequate for a movie gone straight to video. Point 5: This movie delivers exactly what you expect from a movie in this genre. Period.

Now that you judge this flick in it's context (B-movie), you realize it's really not that bad people say it is. Expectations are too high only because they see Wesley Snipes at the opening credits. Throw your prejudice in the corner and see this movie for what it is; Good clean above average action.


good action here, the plot involves Snipes (Jack Toliver) as a disgraced ex-Delta Force soldier who has been living as a professional thief for the past couple of years.. living and working in Europe, his latest heist for $20 million in cash goes horribly wrong, as a teammate is killed.. there's a mole on his team, and Jack has to deal with the Romanian criminal underworld to find out just who betrayed him-- meanwhile, a beautiful, blonde, British NATO M.P. is on his case, who is trying to clear her name as an accomplice (she was briefly kidnapped by Toliver during his escape from the botched robbery).. the "macguffin" here is a rare, "lost" Van Gogh painting worth $65 million.. Jack has it stashed, and the villains are trying to find him so they can get it back.. The climax is a little buggy, but the production values are good, and the acting doesn't get hammy, except maybe for the lead villain, who apparently suffers from tremors..

Other than there's no 'name' actors here besides Snipes, there's no reason this shouldn't have been released in the States..


This movie started off with a lot of promise and, it had all the ingredients for a great heist/action movie. But it all get very lost and over the top, the two marine officers have a no part, the marine major is also a no-parter. Wesley Snipes is funny and as always action packed. Tamsym has a great part but it needed more meat to it. Over all not a bad movie but it could have a really good one.

The location was a great one, the first car chase was great, fast paced and full of action, they then duplicate it towards the end. If you really enjoyed this movie, you have to watch HEAT.

I enjoyed this movie but only because I'm a big Wesley Snipes fan.


The film starts confusingly with a bunch of characters whose story is not told and who get shot quickly. Fair enough, but even the two main characters played by Wesley Snipes and ex-Eastenders and Red Caps star, Tamzin Outhwaite, do not create interest. Snipes makes a half decent performance, but the dialogue put into the mouths of most of the actors was terrible. No decent one-liners, little humour, which is expected in a good action film. In fact the dialogue seemed wooden and unnatural. A high point was the psychopathic performance of Peter Lee Wilson - Alexsie - although comical at times.

The plot was interesting, but the film making was appalling, so the plot seemed incoherent - believe me the film had potential for a good story and the ending was exciting. Some of the action sequences were entertaining, but it was obviously low budget. Shame.


Movie's have come to be just like eating chicken. Everybody is serving chicken; Boiled, baked and fried but it just chicken.

Where have all the new and innovative ideas gone to. The last truly innovative movie that I have saw was The Matrix. I can't hardly find a movie I can sit all the way through anymore. And with that being said, 7 seconds is just about as watchable an anything being produced these days unless you want to soil your sensibilities in the mire of sadistic garbage that is being pushed at us now. Torture and entrapment, murder and mutilation. Heck they have even eliminated the Sci-fi section at Blockbusters. Why??? As a sidebar when ever I see a Wesley Snipes movie I amuse myself with Wesley's ability to bed white women on screen. He seems to be the only card carrying Black man that is licensed to do that in American Cinema. Without suffering some kind of tragic end before the movie ends. In this movie he had two of them. How does he get away with doing that?


I didn't particularly like this movie, mainly due to it's lack of storyline and acting. Sure, we all like gunfights and explosions, but when the movie mainly contains an opening scene and then people having flashbacks of that same scene (I think I counted this happening about 3 times) then it starts to get a bit dull. As far as being an action movie, I have seen better. This one seemed far too generic and dull for the lead actor, especially with the poor supporting cast.

Good 'ol Wes has definitely seen better films. (and I don't know why they got that east enders woman in it. after seeing her on naff British TV, it was rather a shock to see her brandishing a pistol rather than a pint of larger or an iron)


Sure the name Wesley Snipes is what made me grab the movie to rent. Then after it started, I walked off doing chores and taking care of things for the next day.

I did chuckled with the different shots of the vehicle. At one point he scraped the wall enough to create a good bit of recognizable damage; however and aerial shot showed a beautiful undamaged vehicle - chuckle.

The thing I liked the BEST, the song playing while the credits were rolling. If anyone knows that song, please post, I'd like to have a copy.

I'd tell people to rent it using a coupon for a free rental, so you won't feel you were totally robbed.


The movie is terrible. I saw it thinking it would be an action movie (nothing to think about, just relax). Unluckily, I found my self annoyed by the bad production of this movie. Bad effects and acting. It looks like a low-budget one-shot production. Casting is regular (except maybe for the hot ladies that perhaps are a must in this kind of movies).

For the rest, I watch movies from beginning to end, and if this is a spoiler: The intro is kind of cool, however, the subject could be better explored and attacked.

The lack of script starts showing up after that first scene making the movie a pretty bad cliché. A tough guy beating bad guys, in the same way a kid beats bad guys in Home Alone.

It is sad that a good project and a good plot is poorly abstracted to the screen.


I have no idea why so many want to bash this film.....because it's Wesley Snipes? Because it's straight-to-DVD? This movie "7 Seconds" isn't that bad.....it's got some decent one-liner dialog, and some good thrills and some rad car chases.

Since his trademark series "Blade" came to a close in 2004, Wesley has been really almost hitting rock bottom since then. He's been getting the same fate as Seagal and Van Damme only because no on likes martial arts anymore.....so sad. Its actually even more enjoyable to watch than seeing Rambo pick up a rocket launcher or firing those bomb arrows. And even more than Arnie getting his hands on a freaking machine gun and saying "I'll be Back" in a dramatic fashion. Martial arts is more worth watching because it's something that can be done and its a practice.

So Snipes, Seagal and Van Damme seem like they would rather allow their careers to tank than give up their martial arts skills, and i praise all of them for that.

Even though the starting scene might be a rip-off from the one in "Heat" (and yeah, they even take the hockey masks, lol), and the flashbacks are shown a little bit too much, but i guess its for a reason, to show who the characters are talking about, i guess.

And also, Alexsie, that Russian gangster guy with Cerebral Palsy, is also a pretty interesting character, cause the actor does a good job of getting into him, and boy, was he INSANE.

So come on, people....just give it a chance and give Wesley some of that recognition he deserves back. 'cause he doesn't deserve to be in this position.....


The script is full of common places and absurd dialog .I find myself laughing my head off with some dialog that was supposed to be serious . The 2 leads are alright but some of the supporting actors perform like "Look , I'm in a Wesley Snipes movie ". I think that Wesley Snipes really enjoy acting in these kind of movies and I like some of them but it's about time that he goes for a more dramatic role cause I consider him a very fine and excellent actor and some of his previous movies show. Still I have watch some action movies that are worst than this one . I think that the direct to video release is fair in this case , the movie is not that good .I will look for his movie Chaos then with Jason Stantham.


I saw the movie and I can't say that "7 Seconds" is one of my favorites, but i enjoy the scenes from Bucharest. I was amazed seeing "Palace of the Parliament" the second large building after Pentagon, and other buildings. It's a nice movie on this perspective. Specking about the script, I can't really say it's original or very fascinate, they must to improve a lit a bit the scenes. That's my opinion; I hope you can make an idea about the movie just reading my little article or maybe you will be more interest by some details about the film or the places where they turn. That's my firs comment, but I hope it's quite good.


I am born and raised in Bucharest, Romania, where this film was made, so most of the locations were very familiar to me and I enjoyed seeing them on screen. Otherwise, I see too little reasons to pay for a ticket to see this film, and even as an action rental it is average minus. Wesley Smith deserves better scripts, this one is complicated and fuzzy, and the rest of the actors did not help at all in making it less confusing. There are no real characters, just stereotypes, and almost everything that is planned to be a surprise is quite easy to predict in advance. Car chases repeat themselves in lack of something else, and the effects are the ones we were used in such films 20-30 years ago. Even for a low budget film, this one is too routine to be interesting.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Wow. I've had such a bombardment recently from all my favourite action heroes. They've all been okay at best, Godawful at worst, but now it's this late entry from Wesley Snipes co-starring Tamzin Outhwaite, unknown to many but known to me and no doubt many other British viewers from hit TV soap East Enders.

Jack Tulliver (Snipes) is a disillusioned former special ops (just like in his previous film Unstoppable!) commander who's switched to armoured car heists to get by in life. Him and his team have just pulled off the most daring robbery of their careers, when some masked mobsters rudely muscle in on his operation and try to make him hand over a briefcase, which, unbeknownst to him, contains a priceless Van Gogh painting that may be a fake. The police intervene and he is forced to make off. His girlfriend is kidnapped and he is forced to bring a pushy military officer (Outhwaite) along for the ride. He drops her off, thinking that'll be the last he sees of her. But,as events roll on, her, the Romanian authorities and a gang of typically Russian mobsters, headed by a sickly, gaunt figure (they're Equal Opportunities Employers these Russian mobsters, you know) who's proud to have got where he is despite his condition and wants everyone to know it, will come together to make his life really difficult.

Wesley's actually on pretty good form here, firing off wise-cracks and strutting around with his definingly cool-cat persona that was so lacking in his last effort, the dour Unstoppable. Outhwaite provides sturdy support, but she is the amateur in this action adventure game and Snipes is the pro, and their chemistry never lets them forget it. She gets better as the film goes on, but she's still got a bit of a way to go if she wants to latch on to the Hollywood way of doing things. From the minute I first read that she'd appear alongside Wesley Snipes in a new action movie, I knew it'd go straight to video (the Blade franchise is the only thing keeping Snipes in theatres) and I feel kind of sorry for her if she was expecting things to go any bigger, but this could be the start of bigger things and I wish her well for the future. Speaking of up-and-coming British talent, Tamer Hassan has another role as a mob heavy (doesn't this bloke ever worry about being type-cast?) He says practically nothing at all through-out the entire film and he serves no other purpose than to look dark and menacing, as do the other cardboard cut-out heavies. The main Russian villain is fairly eccentric, but ultimately just boils down to your typical such baddie for this type of fare, spurting out an annoying number of sentences that begin with 'in my country, we have a saying...'

But none of the cast can do much about a frenetic, convulted plot that leaves too little time to really care about any of the characters and also raises some serious plausibility errors through-out. But it's fairly slick and polished, Snipes is on good form and there's one or two nice action sequences, so it might just float your boat. **


I don't understand why people expect movies like these to be superb. This is a low budget movie with a very few well established cast and the cast has acted their parts well and the movie in general had good scripts. By the way we expect some few goofs here and there but hey, the car races were crap I think thats what spoiled the movie. And the movie could also have done damage with a little more romance(I mean Kelly and Jack could have kissed at least one descent kiss).

MOst movies that are acted outside the US and UK are not all that, I wonder why Wesley Snipes agreed to do this movie. I hope there will be a sequel, I think they can do better than that because there is a lot of potential in it.


I'm from Romania, not from Bucharest but I know that we don't have Opel Astra Police cars. We have NEW Volkswagen Passat POLICE CARS and Romanian cars like Dacia. This movie is a shame for the US film industry. At least they could do some research before filming in another country. I know that Romania is a poor country but the least they could do is make the movie accurate. I really expected a good movie but no every time some other county films in Romania they do something wrong I'm sick of this. We have a beautiful country. We have beautiful landscapes, we have the Black See. Another thing i can't believe that some Americans think that Romania is some kind of food. Shame on you.


Geez, isn't the public getting sick of all these Russian characters in the movies ? Its obvious a lot of producers are just copying All these great Italian Characters we have had in the past, and it sure seems pathetic. Don't the producers realize ???? Tell me a movie with Russian Gangsters or Characters that have rated so highly...NONE. Yet, producers these days seem to think how exciting these Russian or former soviet union characters are. I find The Russian Culture, and characters very dull, and just be seeing some of the characters in this movie, i sure wont go waste my money, on something that I'm totally getting sick of. If you want a good mobster movie or Gangster movie..Italian Characters are the best by far !!!! NO QUESTION !! all these imitations..are just getting way over the top. Geez, wouldn't a sequel to The Godfather be nice on this day and age !!!


I think this was an entertaining movie! It delivers what I've expected, nothing more nothing less! It has a Few turningpoints which was good. But the movie was easy to figure out like most action movies is! But i watched it cause i knew what i was getting!! Entertainment!!! Snipes always gives you what you want! If You rent a snipes movie,you know what you get!You get action,and if thats what you're after, You've picked the right movie:) I'm not at all disappointed! Snipes keep on track! don't start making comedies like other action actors!

Nothing new here, but i was entertained:) Thank you snipes for many entertaining hours in my sofa:)


The old Rex Beach chestnut, The Spoilers, has been filmed several times, from the early silent days to the Eisenhower fifties. A durable tale indeed. When the first version was made the Emperor Franz Josef was still on the throne in Austria. All versions feature the famous fight between McNamara and Glennister, that begins in a saloon and ends several miles down the street. Windows get shattered, tables and chairs fly through the air, and people gasp in horror.

This 1942 film, directed by the reliable Ray Enright, is actually genteel compared to the silent versions, and as much a vehicle for Marlene Dietrich as anything else. As she was riding the comeback trail, in the wake of her spectacular success in Destry Rides Again, she plays a saloon singer, which had become her specialty. A rousing "Northern" western, set in the days of the Alaskan Gold Rush (which was, incidentally, closer in historical time to the year this film was made than we are to World War II), The Spoilers has a fairly conventional plot about prospectors, claim-jumpers, and the various hangers-on, honest and crooked, that made mining towns like Nome so exciting,--and so dangerous.

Leading men Randoloph Scott and John Wayne make rugged adversaries, though I find Scott somewhat more appealing, which isn't supposed to be the case. Wayne is competent if a little anonymous here. The supporting cast includes the reliable Harry Carey, Richard Barthelmess, Samuel Hinds, and in a cameo (I'm not making this up), the poet, Robert Service, best known for "The Shooting Of Dan McGrew". I guess if you're going to cast a poet in a film like this you don't go for Edna St. Vincent Millay. Service is most appropriate casting.

The sets are quite good, and at times quite fancy; and the streets are muddy, though I seem to remember the earlier films as having a more realistic, dirty look, as Alaska here is cleaner and at least physically less forbidding than one might expect. As to the climactic fight, it is well enough done, and properly violent, though neither participant seems nearly so bloodied up as he ought to. Overall, the movie is satisfying, more routine than I expected, and yet a worthy entry in that fascinating sub-genre, the Gold Rush Western.


This movie's got a good enough plot that it's been made at least 4 times, so you know that part's covered. It's a good story that holds up and moves at a good pace. The cast of stars are caught at interesting times in their varying careers. Dietrich is riding the Destry saloon girl role in a carbon copy of the original that belabors a huge oversized Gibson-girl wig and multiple extraordinary outfits befitting Marlene "the star". She brings her distinctive charm to the role and has a tongue-in-cheek ball with the sexually loaded script, but her role has nothing extra-special or magical. John Wayne is full of swagger and charm and working his way up the ladder towards the title of big stud cowboy on campus. Randolph Scott is turning the corner of his career into Westerns also; abandoning those light comedy or milquestoast leading roles and showing a glimpse of the hardnose tough guy & questionably moral cowboy that he came to be in later career moves. This is the penultimate film for Richard Barthelmess and his role is a morose and bitter one that fits his personal situation of a star who had had his day in the sun and was ready to step-down. Kudos, big laughs and a robust round of applause to the best delivery, lines and most entertaining scenes which are all handled by Marlene's maid - Idabelle - played beautifully and naturally by Marietta Canty. She WILL have you laughing out loud! This film is chock full of sexual innuendo, lust-filled motivation and snide comments; all subtly and enjoyably delivered.


This is the fourth of five filmed versions of Rex Beach's redoubtable northern classic and since it's the only one out on video, it's the one best known to movie audiences. The stalwart trio of Marlene Dietrich, Randolph Scott, and John Wayne head the cast in this story about gold miners losing their claims to con men and doing something about it.

Dietrich's Cherry Malotte is another version of the role she copyrighted in Destry Rides Again. And like in Pittsburgh, Randolph Scott and John Wayne have their hormones in overdrive.

Randolph Scott is the gold commissioner/conman Alex McNamara and it's the only time he ever played a thoroughgoing villain on the screen and he carries it off, but I prefer my Randolph Scott to be tough and heroic.

You need someone like Scott around because even though John Wayne's the good guy, he's just a little too sure of himself where Dietrich is concerned. Even though her heart's with the Duke, Marlene probably liked having Scott around.

Lots of slam bang action here, topped off by what some consider the most brutal movie fight in screen history. Its close rival in Pittsburgh also featured Wayne and Scott and this one is longer, but not as brutal as in Pittsburgh.

Nice cast of good supporting character actors and pay particular attention to Scott's companions in thievery, Samuel S. Hinds and Charles Halton.

With Randy Scott and the Duke and la Dietrich, how can you go wrong.


The 1942 version of "The Spoilers" is the fourth of five filmed versions of the classic tale of life in Nome, Alaska during the gold rush of 1900. The story centers around the miners and their battle with the claim jumpers and cheats..the "Spoilers" of the title.

The film seems to have been designed as a starring vehicle for Marlene Dietrich. She plays the saloon madame, Cherry Malotte as only Dietrich could play her. Her dialogue is full of double entendres and she looks as Marlene Dietrich should with nary a hair out of place. One of the major faults of this film is that the producers failed to include a sultry song or two for Marlene to sing as she had done in "Destry Rides Again" (1939).

The real stars of the film though, are John Wayne and Randolph Scott as miner Roy Glennister and Gold Commisssioner Alex McNamara respectively. Scott in a change of pace plays the villain this time and does so effectively. The weak link in the cast is, I'm sorry to say, Wayne. Wayne needed a strong director such as John Ford or Howard Hawks at this stage of his career. Director Ray Enright fails to get the kind of performance that they could has gotten out of the Duke. He was much better in "Pittsburgh" released the same year (with Dietrich and Scott again).

The highlight of the film is the knock down drag out fight between Scott and Wayne (and their stunt doubles). It is one of the best of its kind ever filmed. Their is also a spectacular train wreck and shootout with the bad guys as well. Unfortunately there are several scenes involving Marietta Camity as Dietrich's servant Adabelle that have racial overtones. In particular is the exchange between her and Wayne when he appears at Cherry's in blackface.

"The Spoilers" is blessed with an excellent supporting cast of seasoned veterans. The venerable Harry Carey appears as Wayne's partner Dextry who fires off several shots from his single shot rifle "Betsy" without reloading. Former silent screen idol, Richard Barthlemess (in his final film) is very good as Bronco a shady figure who frames Glennister for murder. Another silent screen favorite, William Farnum, who played the Glennister role in the 1914 version, plays the lawyer Wheaton. George Cleveland and Russell Simpson provide the comedy relief as a couple of miners and Margaret Lindsay and Samuel S. Hinds play Scott's cohorts. If you look close you will also see a number of "B" western veterans in bit parts. I spotted Bud Osborne as the Marshal, and Harry Woods, Gabby Hayes and Mickey Simpson as miners. And yes, that really is poet Robert W. Service playing himself in a brief cameo.

One can't help but notice the similarities between this film and Wayne's 1960 effort, "North to Alaska", however, I enjoy "The Spoilers" more and more each time that I watch it.


'The Spoilers' may be the most often-filmed western, ever, yet it has been largely forgotten by today's moviegoers, which is a shame! This is a riproaring adventure yarn with claimjumpers, a sexy romantic triangle, loads of humor, and, to cap things off, the most spectacular fistfight in screen history!

The second of three Marlene Dietrich/John Wayne teamings (and Duke is third-billed, behind Dietrich and Randolph Scott!), the plot is simple; evil government 'agents' arrive in Alaska, steal goldminers' claims, until the miners finally take matters into their own hands! In the midst of all this is Wayne, who owns a mine with partner Harry Carey (who is wonderful, as always!) and has had a long-time 'relationship' with saloon-owner Dietrich. When a 'judge' arrives with a pretty daughter (Margaret Lindsay), Wayne's eye begins to wander, and Dietrich sees red! She flirts with handsome Scott, a gold commissioner who is new in town, and obviously smitten!

What isn't known is that Scott and the 'judge' (Samuel S. Hinds, who would one day play Jimmy Stewart's dad in 'It's a Wonderful Life'!) are in cahoots to steal gold claims. After a series of tragedies, however, Wayne figures things out (Dietrich had, long before!), and confronts Scott in the middle of Dietrich's saloon...and the 'fight to end all fights' begins!

You can hold up 'The Quiet Man', or 'Hard Times', or 'Any Which Way But Loose' as having epic brawls, but this one tops them all! We're talking shirts ripped to shreds, broken furniture and windows, rolling under horses and through the mud mayhem, here! If this were pro football, both Scott and Wayne would make the All-Madden Team, for sure! Wayne is the one still standing (barely) at fight's end, and Dietrich is his proud (and willing) prize!

This film may never make a 'Classic Westerns' list (other than mine!), but it is a VERY enjoyable tale that shouldn't be forgotten! If you love a good Western, particularly if you're a John Wayne fan, 'The Spoilers' is a MUST!


This Great Alaskan Western is absolutely fabulous. The dialog alone is worth seeing (yes, seeing) and hearing. The innuendo and double entendre are written beautifully and delivered with crackle. John Wayne is a rather rakish ladies' man and played with much less bravado than typified his later roles. That is wonderful and fun to watch. Yeah, Dietrich played a very similar character in Destry Rides Again, but here she is more sympathetic, and has killer dialog and wardrobe. Seeing Randolph Scott as a charismatic bad guy is also worth the price of admission.

Old silent star, Richard Barthelmess, delivers a nice performance, too, in his supporting role as Dietrich's spurned but loyal suitor and employee. His secretive character, Bronco, really is key. In more run-of-the-mill movies, spurned suitors always side with the bad guys in the mistaken belief that The Hero is their obstacle to happiness. (How predictable is that gambit?) With Bronco you always have that scenario in the back of your mind.

The best scenes all revolve around Dietrich, whether she is being sweet talked by Wayne or Scott. They are both charming, which also is rather unique. Usually the bad guy competitor for the affections of the leading lady in a Western is pretty transparently, well, bad. But Scott manages to make us believe that the law-biding front he maintains for the public is credible - at least to some, but not good ol' Marlene!

I always enjoy seeing Harry Carey in a movie, and this role is particularly neat, since he was one of Wayne's idols. In fact, Randy's cronies are terrific, too. If you are a fan of Westerns, this one is excellent.


I like films like THE SPOILERS because they have absolutely no pretense about them. They are simple B-movie-type films with relatively simple plots and familiar actors but pack a lot of predictable but fun entertainment into them. Sure, since it's a John Wayne flick you KNOW that he will win in the end and you KNOW what to expect. And, for me, that's not a bad thing. I like a good old fashioned John Wayne flick like most of the ones he did in the 40s--good, solid, and entertaining. The only odd thing is that the Duke is billed 3rd when it is clearly his film. Top billing went to Marlena Dietrich--who at the time was the bigger star. However, her part is pretty flat and she clearly acts in support of Wayne. And, second billing went to Randolph Scott. But, once again he was clearly not the leading character but the villain. Now if all this doesn't make sense, you need to understand that although Wayne had made many films by 1942, most were B-movies and he still was only just becoming the break-out star he would so clearly be in just a few short years.

In addition to being a good old John Wayne flick (among his better ones of the 40s), the direction and plot are pretty good as well. A very good movie--nearly deserving a score of 8.


Professionally acted, directed, filmed, and well-written "Gold Rush" movie set the standard that others have copied but never topped. Dietrich is impeccable, actually better than her great performance in Destry Rides Again. Scott turns out to be surprisingly stretched with a touch of seldom-seen whimsy. Wayne, of course, take a role he is perfectly cast for, and makes it better still. Samuel S. Hinds and Harry Carey give standout performances among a uniformly excellent supporting cast. The stunt works and the fight scenes are enduring classics not soon forgotten.

In my humble opinion, the Spoilers should be considered as much of, or more of, an essential John Wayne classic performance and movie that must be seen by any fan or student of Wayne and his movies than other over-hyped films from later days, such as The Searchers and The Alamo. To watch it is to enjoy it.


We are in Nome, Alaska, miner Roy Glennister {John Wayne} and his partner Dextry {Harry Carey}, are forced to fight to save their gold claims from the crooked commissioner, Alexander McNamara {Randolph Scott}. Backed by sultry saloon owner and entertainer, Cherry Malotte {Marlene Dietrich}, the team must overcome the odds and suspect politicians in order to get their just deserts.

Rex Beach's novel has been adapted five times thus far, and it's not hard to see why because the story is as solid as it gets. This take on the source has a wonderful sense of fun and adventure oozing from it, the cast are uniformly great and the direction from Ray Enright is tight and unobtrusive. Some fine set pieces dot themselves throughout the picture, culminating in a right royal {and lengthy} punch up between Wayne & Scott. No overkilling or tediously ham sequences are here, this is simply an enjoyable Western achieving all it set out to achieve from the off. 7/10


The John Wayne Marathon continues into the 14th hour with a whole boatload of interesting characters in a story about the gold rush in Alaska.

Wayne gets third billing in this movie to Marlene Dietrich and Randolph Scott. Dietrich plays a jealous girlfriend and Scott is the new dude in town that is muscling in.

Margaret Lindsay plays the new girl in town after Wayne's heart. Harry Carey is Wayne's partner.

This is at least the 4th version of this story and it won't be the last. A tale of gold mining, claim jumping, saloon, muddy streets, brawls and fancy women will always be in style.

Hang on to your hat and enjoy another Wayne classic.


This filming of the oft told Rex Beach tale is a knock down, drag 'em out, shoot 'em up story of a group of your favorite players, transported from the old West to the Alaska gold rush. And it is a whole bunch of fun.

You just can't beat the cast.....even to the small parts such as Russell Simpson as Flapjack and the consummate drunk Jack Norton as Skinner. Of course, the main characters, Wayne, Dietrich and Scott are the focal points which pull the story together. They are at their best with Dietrich as the sassy dance hall owner: Randolph Scott playing against type as a unapologetic scoundrel: and Margaret Lindsay,usually the sweet virginal type is also against type here as a schemer with a heart of gold (well, sort of).

But there is something about Richard Barthelmess that kept my attention. Here was an Oscar winner (The Patent Leather Kid), who was as big as they got during the silent era but just couldn't seem to make the transition to talkies (with the exception of "Only Angels Have Wings"). And I'm not sure why.....it wasn't his looks, his voice or his acting style. Maybe he just didn't age well (he was only 47 when this film was made but looked older). Whatever the case, he does a good job here but you know from the beginning that he has to die somewhere along the line.....and sure enough, he does.

The film includes one of the most famous fights scenes in movie history between Wayne and Scott (although the use of stunt doubles is pretty obvious). They brawl upstairs, downstairs, on the stairs, and out the door. It's a dandy. It's a rousing, good time film that is worth watching......I like it!!


Rex Beach's Western tale was much filmed over the years  including twice during the Silent era, and an early Talkie version co-starring Gary Cooper; my brother had watched the 1955 color remake, which was O.K. but uninspired. This earlier adaptation, however, stands as a prime example of the genre from the more innocent pre-war era; in fact, starting from the year after  with William A. Wellman's THE OX-BOX INCIDENT (1943), to be exact  the Western achieved sudden maturity that would lead to any number of masterworks in various veins (noir, psychological, elegiac, revisionist) till it died out towards the late 1970s.

Anyway, this is a quite splendid film with all three stars (Marlene Dietrich, Randolph Scott and John Wayne) in good form; incidentally, all of them had just come from impressive individual work in the genre  DESTRY RIDES AGAIN (1939), Fritz Lang's WESTERN UNION (1941), and STAGECOACH (1939) respectively. Having preceded the film by the trio's subsequent (though lesser) teaming, PITTSBURGH (1942), it was interesting to see Wayne and Scott take turns playing the unsympathetic role (in the case of the latter here, he emerges to be an out-and-out villain  if a charming one, and to which he would return for his swan-song two decades later in Sam Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY [1962]). Incidentally, in both THE SPOILERS and PITTSBURGH, Scott is clearly depicted as being interested in Dietrich  but she seems to prefer Wayne (maybe because she did one other title with the latter, SEVEN SINNERS [1940], which is to follow).

The supporting cast is also quite strong: Richard Barthelmess and Harry Carey (both of whom had been stars in the Silent era and had since settled in character roles) appear as Dietrich and Wayne's sidekicks respectively  the former is shady and the latter hot-headed, and each prefers to settle arguments with a weapon (Barthelmess a flick-knife and Carey the shotgun he calls "Betsy"). Scott's gang of crooked associates is made up of Charles Halton, Samuel S. Hinds and, the latter's niece, Margaret Lindsay (who was intended to seduce Wayne for the benefit of their scheme, but ends up falling for him  the actress had been a leading lady of Warner Bros. pictures during the previous decade, but her poignant Other Woman role here is surprisingly well-written).

The compelling narrative extends to many an exciting (and, often, action-oriented) development  trial, bank robbery, jailbreak, train wreck, various instances where law officers face off or shoot it out with miners, and culminating in the famously brutal lengthy fistfight between the two male stars (though this is somewhat spoiled {sic} by the obvious use of doubles in longshots).


It was refreshing to see John Wayne looking so young and healthy. I hadn't seen any of his earlier movies in years. There is a great surrounding cast with the gorgeous and mysterious Marlene Dietrich, and the ever so calm and collected Randolph Scott. In this adventure Randolph plays a villain. Who would have thought it. He plays the part very well and is almost likable with his sophisticated charm as he attempts to devour all the gold mines with swindling "illegal" paperwork. But in the end his evil ways show through and he is undone by his own greed. But we want to see the good guys win, that's what makes for a great ending. And what a knock down, drag out fight it is. This is one of the best saloon brawls I have ever seen. The plot is straightforward and easily followed, with a plot twist or two to keep it interesting. The sets and props look real enough to convince one you are in Alaska. If you like any of the top ten listed actors/actresses you will enjoy this movie. I got my version from Netflix. It seems they are stocking up on some great older flicks for folks that don't need ten cars flying through the air or over the top special effects,to enjoy a movie. Look for it, enjoy it. I did


One of the many good-but-not-great westerns (or would this be a "northern"?) that John Wayne made between *Stagecoach* and *Fort Apache*, *The Spoilers* has top-billed Marlene Dietrich more or less reprising her role from *Destry Rides Again* (they even play an instrumental version of "Little Joe" in the background of one scene).

But the truly inspired bit of casting is Randolph Scott as McNamara, the Mining Commissioner.

McNamara is established immediately as Wayne's rival in love and a little later as a business obstacle. Given the conventions of the genre, we would assume his villainy from the beginning...except, you know, it's *Randolph Scott*. I mean, that would be like...well, like making John Wayne the villain.

So when it turns out that he is the villain, it's a genuine surprise (for the longest time, I kept thinking that he'd have one of those Hollywood conversions right at the end and help Wayne to set things right before dying in a hail of gunfire).

And of course, Randolph Scott couldn't be expected to lose easily to some young whippersnapper named "Marion," so they were almost required to do the excellent brawl which ends the film.

(Another inspired piece of casting which I didn't know about until I looked it up is Robert W. Service playing Robert W. Service.)


Aided by saloon owner Marlene Dietrich, John Wayne and his cantankerous partner Harry Carey Sr. battle claim jumping of the legal variety, perpetrated by villainous bureaucrat Randolph Scott.

A sometimes painfully slow first half, partially due to Dietrich's role being stretched out to fit her top-billed status, is redeemed by an engrossing and exciting second half, including a rousing climax at Wayne and Carey's mine and a helluva great fist-fight between the Duke and Scott.

Harry Carey easily gives the best performance of the film. He and his rifle steal every scene they're in!


The plot of this star-studded film is pretty familiar, involving crooked officials and their henchmen trying to steal the claims and gold of hardworking miners, along with a somewhat troubled romance between the hero and a dancehall queen with a heart of gold. There's even a spectacular train wreck worthy of Cecil DeMille. Marlene Detrich definitely is the queen of dancehall queens, with her penetrating aloof style. Randolf Scott makes a memorable villain, and Wayne gets to use his fists on numerous occasions, including a memorably long one with Scott, which should have resulted in a long hospital stay for both, if authentic. Harry Carey, Russell Simpson and George Cleveland add their usual "oldtimer" personas. Wayne was the hero in another film made the same year with a very similar plot involving 49ers, called "In Old California".

By way of historical background, there was minimal law and order in Nome at this time, when thousands arrived each month in the summer. Claim jumping and other irregularities were rampant. A common device was to issue claims, via the power of attorney, for relatives and friends not present and probably often fictitious. There was a crooked judge, rather like the judge in the film. Many of the latecomers, frustrated that all the good creeks had been claimed, established narrow claims on the beach, after it was discovered that the beach sands contained appreciable gold.

I'd like to discuss two of the secondary main characters:Helen Chester and Bronco, who are glossed over in most reviews. Helen, played by raven-haired Margaret Lindsay, is well characterized in some respects, but poorly in other respects. She is in an ambiguous situation through most of the film. What is clear is her infatuation with Roy (Wayne), with whom she seems to have had an affair on the boat from Seattle, and her recognition that she will probably remain a temporary diversion for Roy, whose main female interest will remain Cherry. Just why she came to Nome is unclear, as is the extent of her involvement in the claim jumping schemes. She is supposedly the niece of the crooked judge Stillman and comes across as a rather colorless debutante. She seems to disapprove of the claim jumping operations, especially when they involve Roy. It is unclear why the leadership of the claim jumping gang tolerates her presence during their discussions of plans, knowing her involvement with Roy and her cool attitude toward their operations. In any case, she serves as an involuntary insider for information important to Roy and the miners. Although she doesn't have the guts to do anything about a Roy assassination plot, her information saves his life. She also gives the film its title with her remark that "We're nothing but a cheap lot of spoilers". In this context, spoilers means crooks.

Bronco is played by Richard Barthelmess, whose better acting days were far behind in the silent era. Bronco appears to be a rather colorless right hand man for Cherry, with a rather sinister look, who probably has had a very shady past. He has the hots for Cherry and nobody else, so he says. Thus, he has something in common with Roy. When Cherry is mad at Roy, he tries to weasel in as her number one, but gets nowhere. During the bank holdup, he tries to shoot Roy from the dark shallows, presumably to eliminate his chief rival for the affections of Cherry. Cherry then coerces him into helping save Roy from assassination, then helping the miners take back their claims by force. Clearly he is marked by the plot to die, and he does.


This is a story about gold mines in Alaska & claim jumping. This Rex Beach work was first done as silent movies in 1914, 1923. In 1930, Gary Cooper did it with sound. Then came this 1942 version which during the war took advantage of star power.

John Wayne & Marlene Deitrich & Randolph Scott are a love triangle & there is even another woman for Wayne to romance. Scott gets to play the heavy who along with a crooked judge try to ace Wayne & his partner out of their gold mine, The Midas. The other woman in Waynes life is part of the bad guys triangle, trying to lure Wayne into a trap. She utters the title line, "We're just spoilers." While I have not seen the other versions, plus 2 more done later in the 1950's, this one is stronger than your typical western because of the talented cast & the tremendous fist fight scene between Wayne & Scott which takes most of the last 10 minutes of the film.

This is the only time that this cast appears together in one film & fans of all three stars have reason to look at this film. It even presents a mild verbal cat fight between Waynes 2 women. Dietrich wins though her hero is pretty badly mauled in the final sequence. She runs a bar-casino in the movie & her tag line is "Anything you can win, you can collect." She says it twice in the movie, & like most movies of this era, you never see the winner collect, it is a stirring part of the imagination.


This movie goes strictly by formula, this cast made a much better movie, "Pittsburgh." This movie still has camp value.

The make-up and wardrobe for the women is worth watching. How did they get all those marvelous dresses to Nome? And how did they keep them so clean and sparkly? La Dietrich wears hats that are strictly from outer space and makes her look Christmas tree-esquire.

The script banter that compares getting in women's pants to playing poker goes on way over the top...but watching Randolph Scott and John Wayne go at it is pretty darned funny.

So a 4 of 10 for movie overall, but an "8" for camp value.


I'd never heard of this film until recently it was recommended to me as a pleasant but easily overlooked Jean Arthur film

Jean Arthur's range is hardly tested in this one - she plays Carole a nice girl next-door type with the typical Arthur intelligence but without any of the more complex qualities, which in certain of her films drew such memorable performances.

George Brent, as Fred Gilbert, is similarly untested in this film (as in most of his films) but is in the additionally unfortunate position of providing the comedy in the romance, initially through his health regime obsession and then his superficial attraction to Maizie (Dorothea Kent), (the latter also being the means by which an essentially simple story is sufficiently prolonged to allow a feature length gap between the boy meets girl beginning and the inevitable - this is 1930's romantic comedy - boy gets girl ending).

A modern audience may not react too well to Fred's comments about a woman's role in business or his attempt at ruthlessly (in intent if not in effect) resolving his `Maizie situation' once the attraction has palled. However the main problem with this film is not that the women's movement has moved on 70 years since the film was made - 1930's comedies are after all, remembered for the strong and independent heroines and Fred is of course made to regret and reconsider his words and actions. It is simply that you do wonder a little just what Carole sees in him. Fortunately this film is saved from the romance being completely unbelievable by Carole's obvious recognition (and Jean Arthur's ability to convey) that she loves Fred regardless of his faults.

What is slightly harder to accept is Fred's overlooking Carole for so long (at least once she is out of the rather scary suit and spectacles she wears in the film's opening scene). Even allowing for the fact that anyone can make a fool of him/herself when it comes to love, Fred's abrupt changes of heart, especially the first volt face when he decides to employ Maizie, left me a little puzzled. A nice clue is given in the scene where Fred follows Carole to the secretarial school and in response to he snappish `I'm busy' he sharply retorts, `I never saw you when you weren't'. However this is not explored fully nor given elsewhere as an explanation for his foolishness (at just 80 minutes long, an additional 2-3 minutes to deepen this rather more satisfactory explanation for Fred's behaviour would not exactly have overdone things).

In addition to the main cast there is the usual nice support from Lionel Stander and Ruth Donnelly, Columbia contract actors, as likely as not to be in any Jean Arthur film of this time. I'm not sure why but Lionel Stander saying the word `bellicose' just cracks me up. There are some nice scenes between Ruth Donnelly and Jean Arthur, which are a rarity in a film genre where scenes between 2 women are usually about romantic rivalry and bitchy exchanges. This element is of course present in the scenes between Carole and Maizie, the latter being as unpleasant and manipulative as the audience needs her to be in order that we do not need to worry about her (or Fred's treatment of her) when she is ultimately dispatched (landing on her feet in any event).

If you like 1930's Hollywood romantic comedy then this is a sweet, unassuming film, which, while not as memorable as many other films of Hollywood's golden age, is still worth a look.


With Jean Arthur, Ruth Donnelly, and Lionel Stander in the cast, More Than A Secretary starts to look like a road company Mr. Deeds Goes To Town. Too bad it isn't quite up to the standard of that comedy classic.

But this was more an example of the fluff that Jean Arthur was asked to carry in her career. Not every film could be a Mr. Deeds.

Jean and Ruth Donnelly run a secretarial school from which they graduate women of all kinds including Dorothea Kent, a poor man's Marie Wilson. Dorothea's typing and shorthand leave much to be desired, but she does have other assets and his certainly decorative enough.

Jean goes to work for health magazine editor George Brent who is maniacal on the subject of fitness, sexist in his views of women, and something of a puritan. But Jean proves pretty indispensable as his magazine circulation starts to boom.

But then Reginald Denny who has a jealous wife dumps Dorothea back on George who with Jean has to put up with her incompetence. Something has to give.

The whole thing was rather silly to me. Why they don't just fire this bimbo is beyond me. Maybe Denny's hormones are making the decision for him, but Brent's certainly aren't.

Maybe I'm too harsh on the film though. I in fact worked for a woman who headed a state agency and she was so stupid she couldn't probably spell the word. I could have seen her like Kent, running Tina's Nail Salon on Cropsey Avenue in Brooklyn. But she also was in her job because somebody's hormones went into overdrive.

George Brent was borrowed from Warner Brothers by Harry Cohn for this film. My only question is why did he use a favor from Jack Warner for this. Or was Brent being punished?


This film is a good example of the actors and their personas being MUCH better than the material they are given! While I have always loved Jean Arthur as well as George Brent in films, they are much too good for this tripe. In particular, Jean tries very hard in this film, but Brent's character is so poorly written and stupid that it drags the entire film to a standstill and looks as if it were written by some inexperienced hacks.

The film begins with Jean and Ruth Donnelly at a secretarial school they own. So far, so good--both are wonderful actresses and I had my hopes set VERY high since they were in the film. Then, 'Maizie' (Dorthea Kent) makes an appearance as a ditsy hussy and the film begins to slowly slide downward (she was a truly cardboard and annoying character). So I was THRILLED when the film moved from this school to the offices of a magazine editor played by Brent. Apparently, he was such a demanding boss that secretary after secretary from the school either quit or were fired and so Jean goes to give him a piece of her mind. Instead, she is smitten by him and takes the job herself.

At this point, I was intrigued by the film. No major problems. However, when she came to work the next day, Brent's character was such a ridiculous and impossible to believe jerk that the film really began to spiral downward very quickly. Not only was he bombastic and a total health nut, but his having everyone do group exercises (like those done in many Japanese companies, by the way) was poorly executed. What person would order these exercises and then open the window and let all their many, many papers blow across the office and yet continue exercising?! Surely it would take hours to rearrange all the papers--why not stop for five seconds to close the window! This sort of extreme and stupid behavior continued from then on, such as when they went out to eat at a vegetarian restaurant, go for long, long walks in the middle of pouring rain and talk on and on and on (ad nauseum) about "right living and exercise". This was all supposed to be funny, but really came off poorly, as his character seemed more like a silly caricature of a person! Now if this wasn't bad enough, about midway through the film, Maizie re-appeared and then the film's romance between the leads was completely derailed. At this point, Brent ("Mr. Extreme") became such an obnoxious jerk that it was small wonder that Jean didn't just kill him! The bottom line is that it must have taken a lot of work to but Brent and Arthur in a film and have me so bored and annoyed by the whole thing. Considering all the warm and wonderful films these two made, it's amazing that this film was as poor as it was.


Did anyone wonder why the trailer had no door? Must have been a creation of the prop department. Why in the world would anyone want the guy after fooling around with Mazie. The guy seems like a real jerk rather than a leading man. And that mustache does not help George Brent either. I thought it was real weak acting from pros than sure can do better. Stander and Donnely really stand out, and The girl that plays Mazie isn't too bad either. There are so many loose plot lines in this that it's hard to accept any of them. I like comedies from this period, but this one is a waste of time unless you are a BIG Jean Arthur fan. Columbia should have thrown the Three Stooges in for some serious plot twist.


This show was extremely pathetic, but I would buy the DVD of the aired shows in a minute because they are unintentionally hilarious! For one thing, Chevy Chase seemed to have been strung out on antidepressants, horse tranquilizers, or something; because he was so inept as a host as to seem deliberately horrendous.

He sat down at a desk with a huge 500-galloon salt-water tropical fish tank behind him. This was a novel concept and I liked it. Unfortunately, during one episode, the water had a brownish tinge to it and the fish were obviously dying. It seems that a stage hand with an axe to grind had dumped a cup of coffee into the aquarium. The next show, the tank was gone.

His interviewing skills were so bad as to make Carson Daly seem like Mike Wallace. I remember one interview with Dean Cain where Chevy actually smirked at him and suggested that Cain was gay. You could tell that Dean Cain was visibly restraining himself from punching out the inept host.

This show was quickly cancelled and it's no mystery as to why.


I remember waiting in anticipation for this series to start. Always a fan of his, I knew that his show would be a little different and more entertaining, (read: less dry), than the offerings that were available. I thought "The Pat Sajak Show" was the worst new talk show by the way.

He held the traditional talk show stage with a few differences. He moved about his stage with ease and with the same style that people are expecting from him.

He differed from his contemporaries by only focusing on 2 guests per night. Let the viewer see and hear more about his guests than other talk show hosts at the time.

The only low-light of his short lived program was a despicable, rude appearance by Corben Bernsen. He came in straight away criticizing Chevy and, in the worst mannered ungrateful way, gave back his appearance gift he thought was cheap, and marched off the stage.

Others view this program as terrible. I believe it is because Chevy is unique in his talent. And, it is some of the more simple and base forms of entertainment. To some people, he's too staid in his style.


This film has got to be one of the worst sequels ever produced. The plot line was poor, confusing and the ending was really unclear.

Characters who were in it just disappeared without any fuss.

No where near as good as number one.

This sequel goes down in flop history with:

Grease 2 & Dirty Dancing 2

Classics having their names ruined with producers who make one film to many!

I just wondering if any of the people who have written reviews have actually seen the film??

Total waste of money. I wouldn't recommend it at all!!!


This wasn't too bad a movie. It was basically about following your dreams and dealing with adversity along the way. Although I had basically seen the movie before with different titles (if you get my meaning), I thought the movie was good. Izabella Miko was good in the lead role as she performed the dance scenes well. Those scenes, by the way, were spectacular! (especially the ballet scenes and the part at a night club) While the themes of the movie were familiar, I found this movie to be refreshing and a good way to spend less than an hour and a half. I would recommend it.

** 1/2 out of ****


There were some good moments in STLD2, sure, but the few good ones could not make up for all the bad. In the first five minutes of this movie we saw an interview with no context (Who was interviewing her? Why? Documentary?) and a misfired Hamlet joke.

On the first appearance of the room mate, Zoe (who even has a cliché quirky brunette name) we see that the writer clearly doesn't even have the basic knowledge required for his craft. Zoe's trunk is full of random things that are nothing but random and there to paint her as the crazy whore drama kid. Thanks. I appreciate you stereotyping my people. When the skull was picked up and Zoe said that it was Hamlet, I almost turned off the movie. I don't think you can call yourself a writer if you are not familiar with the masterpiece of English speaking literature. THE SKULL IS YORIK! The rest of the movie follows in this way. Clichés, bad lines and jokes that don't quite make sense in context. There was a good moment where Miles (Columbus Short, the redeeming actor in this movie) plays the sound of ice cracking. That was pretty much it. The dances weren't that good and half of them were cut creatively so they didn't really have to show them. Half of one girl's dance was inter cut with the exact same "oh puh-lease" expression that the main actress kept pulling. It was painful.

The movie didn't address the race issue (which was half the point of its predecessor) and the conflict was a creation of the main character's head where she decided her boyfriend lied to her when in fact he never did. They never danced together either. So why was it a sequel? The movie also had an annoyingly self righteous message about conservatory schools. They painted the elite elimination of students in the lower half of the class as cruel. Sorry, in the real world you DON'T get an A for effort and people CHOOSE to go to conservatory schools for the elitism and the status they can achieve if they make it through. Boohoo, life isn't fair.

At the end of the movie I really hated the main character. She pretty much spat in the face of her teacher by refusing to go to the party. Instead of being grateful for her amazing opportunity and letting the old bird show her off for a few hours and then quitting ballet the next day, she had to embarrass her. It's not her fault you don't wanna be a ballerina! In the end I think someone else wrote Miles (Columbus Short) and then they hired a fifteen year old girl wannabe dancer to write the rest of the movie. Way to go. When there are so many talented writers who are struggling to make ends meet, you go and pay someone who should probably go be an accountant.


I really enjoyed this movie. Most Hollywood dance movies are very poorly done, simply because they rarely cast anyone with the requisite training to make the dancing sequences enjoyable, believable, or even worth watching. Ballet is not something you can pick up in 6 months of intense training. Prior to watching the movie, I looked up the lead actress, and was delighted to find she actually has had classic dance training. That became very clear, watching her dance. The movie does have a few nice plot twists, as far as the relationships of the key characters. I also enjoyed the portrayal of Julliard.

Excellent movie, if you enjoy dance, and, have danced, or been involved with the world of ballet, or modern dance.


Sarah Johnson had a lot of talent before her mother died but gained a lot more talent having to live in the Chicago ghetto (A lot of talented people come from the ghetto). Sarah gained the talent to dance hip-hop, even to use it in one of her audition dances for Julliard. Sarah was caught in a dilemma of choosing ballet or hip-hop and she finally felt in her heart that performing hip-hop was better than trying to be a famous ballerina. She had a new lover, new friends and a new life. There is no interracial problem but she does have a new black boyfriend (last one dropped he for his scholarship. The basic story is did she make a mistake going for Julliard.


This was a terrible movie with a bad plot line. They repeated the same story line as the first but with a different love interest for the same main character. The girl that they got to play Sara however was a terrible actress and was like watching a bad car crash. They had her in red gothy lipstick throughout the entire film that was distracting and unlike Sara. I can't even remember the dancing or the music because all I could think of was how bad this movie is. It totally ruined a great movie and now I am going to have to try to forget that I ever saw it in the first place. I honestly only watched it because it was on t.v. and there was nothing better to watch. It did not relay the message as the first one did. It sent out weird racial messages and was a disgusting display of how Hollywood is out of original ideas. I'd hate to be the writer of this script.


My daughter and I loved Save the Last Dance 1 (one of our favorite movies). When we saw there was a second one, we were so excited. We watched the movie through it's entirety, but at the end of the movie we were both very disappointed in the movie. The movie itself was good - but just knowing that it was a continuation of Sara's life, is what upset us over the movie. None of the original cast was in the second one (no one can take Julia Stiles place in that movie) and just the fact that everything that Sara and Derek went through in the first one just to be together - "they" decided to take a break from each other and date other people. The second one was a big let down. If the second one would have been about someone else's life - it would have been a great movie - on it's own.


I think the moves are great. It's very very nice. I have never seen before, such great combination of hip hop and ballet. It's a nice love story. If you love to see people dance and dance to the music, this movie is made for you. It looks a bit like the movie step up, music, dance and love, but both are great movies. The musics composed are very creative and very touching, where the Miles compose music with Sarah's heart beat. That is genius. The songs are not only just hip hop but with classical music and many more. What are you waiting for, this is a movie that you must watch. If you love arts, music, dance, hip hop, ballet, this is the movie created for you. This movie teaches people that you must follow your dreams using your heart, no matter how hard it is, do what it is best for you, not for others. Although, sometimes life seems so hard to reach your goal but don't give up, do it to perfection. Once you have achieved it, you would be so happy that you would be thinking, "Luckly, I didn't give up my dream." It's all though hardwork and effort that i have put in just like Sarah.


I liked this movie just about as much as the first, if not more. I know it's odd to say that about a sequel, and a sequel going straight to DVD without it's original cast no less, but I really liked it. I thought it was a good movie about following your heart and finding your place and passion. Some people are saying that it has the same storyline as the original, but I didn't see that. I thought it was completely different. There are different people, different surroundings. Sarah is already at Julliard in this one and she's in love with rap and hip-hop music at this point. How can you be more different than that? I'll definitely buy it to add it to the original in my collection of DVDs at home. :)


this movie is something that you would watch if you have nothing better to do and you are stuck in a baking desert bus stop, with it being your only form of mental stimulation. The comment above is totally wrong. this movie is the same as the 1st and nothing has changed except the actors get worse and the budget is minuscule. Anyone who has seen this movie will agree with me that love when your young does not happen in the way portrayed in this movie. not that it was ever meant to portray a true sense of young love. moreover, the scale on which they portray love and relationships is beyond fairytale proportions which Walt Disney himself could not have conceived. in closing i would not recommend you wasting your valuable time watching this movie. if however, you are stuck in a baking desert bus stop think of this article and laugh as you watch it and say isn't that something.


I just recently saw this movie because I really was looking for a movie to watch. I had already read he comments for this movie before I saw it. This movie was lacking something. I mean the chemistry was OK between Sara and Miles but the dance movies was horrible. A viewer could tell that the new Sara could not dance hip hop. The way it went with the music was just bad. I did like the plot and the meaning behind the movie. The way Sarah acted and her ballet was excellent though. The funny thing is that you can tell that the actress used to be a ballerina in real life. I did love Miles. He really is why I watched the movie for the second time. He is really cute and his smile does light up the movie. But after everything was said and done, the movie was just missing something that I can put my foot on.


save the last dance(1)was such a good movie. the story was awesome and the cast was great. THIS MOVIE... The cast was completely redone and it was a real letdown. No one can replace Julia Stiles as Sarah Johnson--angry ballet dancer with the hot black guy chasing after her(ha-ha) The only reason I sat thru the whole movie was because Columbus Short was in it. Hes gorgeous and he saved the movie. No offense to Izabella Miko but she killed the role of Sarah and NOT in a good way. The story was a bit lame and really the movie shouldn't have been made unless it was with Julia Stiles. (of course we could keep Columbus Short in it because hes hot). But other than that...someone should have really stopped production on this until they got the original cast back. I say we call a do-over.


I did not enjoy this movie at all. It is one of the worst sequels ever made. All they did was alter the first movie slightly, take out some of the conflict, throw in some different actors...

The fact that they found another actress to play the same character was already a huge disappointment. And this was before I even started the movie. Facts pop out randomly and characters that started out in the story just disappeared because of lame reasons.

I did not find the 'big finale' very interesting, meaning I had to sit through an hour and a half of drama that I'd already seen in the first movie, just so I could see the poorly done finish.


The master of surrealistic cinema, Luis Buñuel, changed his approach to the bourgeoisie after "Tristana", and his last three films are all comic and prevail through a mixture of pure surrealism, extreme irony and the one consistent theme of Buñuel's auteurship- hatred of the ruling classes.

"Le Fantôme de la Liberté" is perhaps Buñuel's least accessible work since his first two films, "Un Chien Andalou" and "L' Age d' Or". It is a thematic continuation of "Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie", where the seven protagonists just couldn't finish, or even start, a meal. This is a strong metaphor for Buñuel's view that the bourgeoisie is a dying class, and that not even a violent revolution is needed to remove the bourgeoisie from power and wealth. They are perfectly capable of doing so themselves, through their indulgence in pathetic etiquette and decaying sense of morality. "Le Fantôme" is not funnier than "Le Charme", but it is harder to understand, and this is exactly what Buñuel and Carrière wanted after the success of "Le Charme" at the previous Academy Awards.

In "Le Fantôme", not even the characters are consistent throughout the film. This film is like a relay, where one member of the ruling class passes the stick to the next, and never comes back to the vision of the audience. They just leave, like Buñuel wanted them to, perhaps, but in this film is an important factor because it confirms Buñuel's non-human view of the people of this class. His was a collective hatred, and this film reflects his collective view of the bourgeoisie. The film contains absurd, surreal incidents, like priests playing cards while smoking and drinking, parents reacting to postcards of famous buildings given their daughter by a stranger as they were obscene and a writer killing tens of people from his sniping-position at the roof of a building. The writer is found not guilty, and the continuing mix-up of characters, two actors competing for one role makes for a very confusing narrative. Or maybe the "story" is just a mockery of traditional storytelling in film. Resnais and Robbe-Grillet made "Last Year in Marienbad" just to prove that telling stories is a bourgeois thing and not necessary for modernist or revolutionary cinema.

This film is actually based on a painting by Francisco José de Goya called "El Tres de Mayo" (The three in Mayo), and "Le Fantôme" starts with a short episode of how Buñuel depicts the incidents during the Napoleon Wars. But it's the theme of Goya's painting that Buñuel is concerned with, and this film is more than a mockery of the bourgeoisie, it is also an attack on communist doctrine which all over the world only seems to take from the people what is was supposed to give to the people: Freedom, and also an attack on leftist defeatism. The glorification of the defeat is perhaps the modern Left's biggest problem, which only leads to a move away from power. "Down with freedom!", Buñuel's revolutionaries shout- and the firing squads start firing at the dying revolutionaries.


One of Buñuel's greatest films. Scene after scene arguments are used as beautiful excuses to subvert reality and attack established and hypocritical institutions with acute humor and surrealist means. If you have a taste for surrealism and absurd humor (i.e. Monty Python, Marx Bros., etc.) this movie cannot be recommended enough.

One small correction: the sniper is not sentenced to death but to capital punishment which results in something altogether different from death (and far more sarcastic).


This is one the great comedies but it's not really a laugh out loud satire. The series of barely interlocking sketches really break down your senses of what you expect from movies. My favorite bits are when a little girl goes along with her parents to the police station to report that she has been missing for some time and when the military is brought into a zoo to keep the people away from the animals. The look on the face of an ostrich almost seems to be one of relief. People can read deeply into the messages of the stories or can just be taken for the fun (one might almost say hip) paradoxes of society. I think Bunuel wants to show that complete freedom is impossible because even if you are willing to detach from everybody and everything, you still have your own inner-nature to answer to. **** out of ****


This excellent collection of satirical vignettes is my kind of movie - crazy, dark and comical, it goes any direction it wants and does not follow any rules. When we try to grasp for the meaning, it is like a ghost, a phantom that "leaves us with a wisp of vapor in our hands" and disappears - very much like the liberty, the freedom the humans try to find but instead could only see its phantom disappearing. The film follows many characters on its way shifting effortlessly and playfully from the central ones to the minor ones making minor ones the central and going back and forth from one time period to another. It opens in Toledo during the Napoleonic occupation then jumps to the modern day Paris. It could've gone anywhere and introduced me to any character - it still would've been enormously interesting because it was made by the master who had never lost his curiosity, his inquisitive mind, his memory that consisted of the strange and amazing images, his sense of humor, his childhood dreams, his fantasies, dark and shining and who was able to throw them all on the screen like no one ever was able or will be able to do. To understand Bunuel completely would be as impossible as to catch the Phantom of Liberty - he will be always one of the best and unsolved mysteries in the Art of Cinema.


Although Bunuel was to make one more film,"cet obscur objet du désir" ,"phantom of liberty" would remain his testament,his last sigh ,to mention the title of his memoirs.

The key to the movie is the segment dealing with the naughty gendarmes,the sociology teacher and Margaret Mead's books.Law must not be taken for granted,it depends on where and when you live.Something which would seem unbearable to us is nothing but natural to other human beings.The whole movie walks this fine line,being built around this very concept.It is Bunuel's most accessible movie and it's completely mad,which is fine with me.Its construction is not unlike Max Ophuls's "la ronde" (1950) as a new character provides the connection between the segments.It's not really free-form ,in the sense of the nouvelle vague ,nothing Godardesque here and anyway,Bunuel possessed something Jean-Luc will never have:humor.And the screenplay displays care and respect for the audience.One should point out Jean-Claude Carrière's importance in Bunuel's last works in France.

In "discreet charm of the bourgeoisie" ,humor which was latent in the former works (the dogs in "Viridiana" ;the pineapple in "Nazarin" ) came to the fore."Phantom" is probably not as strong as the previous work:it's sometimes uneven and some segments (the old aunt and her nephew)drag on.But most of the times,it's a delight.Bunuel's usual targets ,the Church and the Army are both given a rough ride .But social conventions ,"normality" are too.

A bevy of great actors take us to a magical mystery tour (Bunuel's regret was that too many movies lack mystery) Here he focused on the secret of the passage of the night hours ,wherever the action takes place ,in Brialy's and Vitti's bedroom or the inn where the guests are weird to say the least (the scenes in the inn recall those of "la voie lactée,1969).And the ostrich in the couple's room ,we find it back at the zoo,for the finale,when repression rises.When we bury our head in the sand ,French people call it "ostrish politics"! Bunuel was a great man.Everything he did is crying to be watched.When the movie was released,probably upset by the huge commercial success ,some critics called it "Bunuel' s holiday homework".Time proved them wrong.In 2005,"phantom" is solid as a rock.


Through many episodes with some linking points since 1808 in Toledo (Spain) to the present days in France, Bunuel presents a delicious surrealistic satire to the moral and costumes of the hypocrite society, to the family values and to the church. I liked very much some parts, like, for example, the hypocrisy of the priests in a hotel, praying for the health of the father of a guest in a moment, and drinking and playing cards like gangsters in the next moment. The bourgeoisie family sat on toilets in the dining room and producing crap while having a conversation is fantastic, reflecting his opinion about the dominating class. The little girl that "vanished" for her parents is a great critics to the behavior of most families. The hypocrisy of the justice, reflected in the segment of the sniper. It is amazing the interpretations each segment offers to the viewer through the symbolism of Bunuel. However, this movie is recommend for very specific audiences. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Fantasma da Liberdade" ("The Phantom of the Liberty")


Luis Bunuel's final film from an original screenplay (by him and collaborator Jean-Claude Carriere), The Phantom of Liberty, befuddled me so much more than the other Bunuel films I've seen that I had to turn it off after twenty minutes, thinking I'd get back to it at some point. I finally did, and it turns out to be maybe not one of Bunuel's absolute best, but it has many memorable moments in his twilight years as a surrealist master. The strange thing is about this film, and I've come to realize it more after seeing Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie again recently (my favorite feature length film of his), is that there is such a line that is walked, like a tightrope walker holding an elephant in one hand and a thumbnail in the other, that one wonders whether this should be taken totally seriously or just with the general hysteria and (crucially) absurdism that laces much of Bunuel's work in his post Mexico period. Sometimes, much like with The Exterminating Angel, it's a little frustrating, even once one understands that having no structure to the film is the point.

For example, in one of the segments that make up the film's loose structure, a woman is visiting a group of Priests out in a house on the outskirts. Much of this sequence is rather serious, dealing with a young man's lusting for an older woman, the rousings and thoughts of the old priests...and then it suddenly, finally, breaks up the tension with an S&M gag! This is very tricky ground that Bunuel covers in the film, and for the most part he ends up pulling it off. At times I wondered if a film like this would work in other hands. It wouldn't; there's a sense of pacing that makes the film seem rather serious, but (as it says on the back of the original video box) it owes as much to Monty Python as it does to the old-school 20's surrealism that got Bunuel up off his feet and into the cinema scene. Sometimes I laughed cause I felt terribly uncomfortable, other times because there was a real pay-off. But in reality, the Phantom of Liberty is the kind of film where many times you just stare and go 'huh, what'? And I mean that as a compliment.

By the way, the film also has two other interesting factors to note, one about an "infamous" scene that did leave me laughing hard, and another more of historical note. The scene where the rich people sit around the table, toilets as their seats, pants down, doing their business, is true absurdism at a peak of intelligence. The other note is that if you wonder if this structure has ever been repeated or expounded upon, Richard Linklater's first film Slacker comes closest, though with a much different tone and style of comedy. Here, we get the upper class, religion, old-time armed forces (gotta love that statue slap the guard in the 19th century segment), and the struggle between keeping with dreams or reality, or both. This is the kind of film that almost puts me off with its irreverence, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't stunned and amazed by the audaciousness as well.


Luis Bunuel's "Le Phantôme de la liberté" is a movie whose episodes are only loosely connected, because the watcher is a part of the society whose liberty and freedom is a phantom. Moreover, it is man who watches this movie that also creates the story  not on the screen, of course, but in her or his mind. This is a movie that does never go out of your mind.

The clue scene is in the episode where Margaret Mead's books are mentioned. And in fact, since this movie deals with liberty and with persons of very different cultural, religious and aesthetic backgrounds, it is a sociological movie. It was Mead who gave the direction to the late cybernetician Heinz von Foerster's (1911-2002) work: Second-order cybernetics. It is called "second order" because this theory has an environment in which subject and object have a space of liberty. Only in such an environment-based logic it is possible to reflect to oneself. And this is exactly what happened in Bunel's core-scene: The teacher speaks to his students that laws have exceptions because they are depending on man, and man is depending on evolution. Therefore, there can be no laws at all, because they also stay and fall with evolution. And if they are no laws at all, then they are no causal relations. And if there are no causal relations, then form and function vanish, exactly like in Bunuel's movie. But the most important point is that this conclusion is reflected in the movie itself. The teacher who makes this self-reflection moreover has much in common with Bunuel, so for example, when he criticizes the standard level of human life in Spain  as Bunuel did in an interview.

Another interesting point is that the physician's name is Dr. Pasolini. Bunuel's movie was released in 1974, thus just at the time when Pier Paolo Pasolini started to film his last work "Salo", in which (amongst many other marvelous events) there is the famous or infamous scene where people are forced to eat faeces. But faeces play an important role in Bunuel's "Phantom of Liberty" (so the English title of this movie), too: The teacher explains his friends how many kilograms of faeces a human produces daily, and since there are so and so many billions of people on this world, this makes so and so many tons of faeces per year. Then, the teacher has lunch in the restroom (one of the most famous scenes of this movie). And finally, in his regular bar, the teacher explains the girl who resembles to his sister that this sister died because her intestines exploded. This three-times occurrence of faeces, the mentioning of Pasolini and the insight that form and function must abolish only because of human evolution leads the critical watcher to a conclusion about the sociology of human life that is not too far away form that of Pasolini: All mankind is able to produce is faeces.

Although Bunuel made one more movie ("Cet obscur object du désir", in 1977), he considered the "Pantom of Libery" his testament. Pasolini's testament was the "Salo". Bunuel still lived nine more years after his "Phantom", Pasolini was killed shortly after the postproduction of "Salo". Pasolini was radical and consistent, Bunuel still had kept his sense of humor (the "Phantom" ranges under "comedy", at least officially). Perhaps in the end, it was the humor that let Bunuel alive, while its absence killed Pasolini. Or was Bunuel's humor gallows humor? He drank himself to death.


This wondrous and admirable picture begins with Napoleon's troops invading Toledo, Spain in 1808, where a group (including Bunuel) are facing a firing squad. Then an officer tries to kiss a stone statue lady, and is struck by an adjacent statue's arm. The film then moves to present day France, and a man giving postcards to children, who he tells, don't show them to adults. You see the postcards contain the shocking images of structural landmarks. The short stories begin and disappear quickly, with one of the characters exiting a scene, and leading off into another different location. The viewer doesn't have long to think, and is suddenly thrown into a new unusual episode. Other memorable scenes include one where guests sit on toilets at a dinner table, then ask to go to a small cubicle to eat on their own. One where a sniper shoots many people, and when tried in court and found guilty, is sentenced to death. His handcuffs are then removed by police, who shake his hand, and outside a gathering of people ask for his autograph. My favourite scene is when a couple are told to go to their daughter's school, because she has vanished. They arrive there and find her in class, the school register is read out, and she replies, then they take her to the police station. The police sergeant then questions the young girl about her height, weight, and so on, then calls an officer in and tells him to look all over the city for this girl, the officer then replies "Can I take her with me?". Marvellous. It is all quite superb. It would be unfair to describe all the scenes, you really have to see this picture and allow them all to soak into you, preferably after several viewings of the film. A picture made with utter abandon and liberty. Classic Bunuel. One of his very best.


This is one of the first 'surreal' films that I have seen. Phantom of Liberty for the most part is quite a normal film with a structured narrative and some quite well defined characters What makes it brilliant is the fact that one minute, its just a normal film and then a scene where a family sit at a table on toilet seats is thrown at us. Followed by each family member coming to another room to eat on their own. Distorting reality. Weird! Some parts of the film are so absurd they are funny. Such as an early scene where some parents look at pictures and deem them 'disgusting' when they are just pictures of buildings. Its very strange and humorous in general.

The are minimal cuts in the camera work, shots flow together nicely. For example a two shot may not cut to an over the shoulder shot, but just adjust to it. A technique which I liked.

I found this film to be quite oddly lit. Is often dark and light is used kind of sparingly. Odd, as the film sometimes almost looks like shades of grey through its darkness.

I'm guessing that the criterion version is the way to go, I saw a version taped from TV about 6 years ago, which was at times fuzzy and grainy. Anyway, to sum up. A mad film that defies logic, is funny, shocking and engaging to the last perfect frame. Highly recommended!