It's too bad, really, that the horror anthology is not more common or popular these days. Amicus Productions came up with some mighty fine ones in the 1960's and 1970's, and the form continued into the 1980's with such entertaining fright flicks as "Creepshow", "Cat's Eye", and "The Offspring". However, studios still don't have as much enthusiasm for these kinds of movies as fans such as I would like.

Dennis Bartok, screenwriter and longtime programmer at the American Cinematheques' Egyptian Theatre, came up with this reasonably enjoyable horror anthology that unites an intriguing (to say the least) assortment of directors. It was this single facet that drew me to the picture, and each director gets to do a different story in a different style.

Basically, we have an aged tour guide (the wonderful veteran Henry Gibson) leading some tourists to a run-down former movie set where a diabolical director filmed his most notorious film. The disparate group becomes trapped in the set and learns that they will each have to tell their own very personal horror stories in order to get through their situation. This wrap-around segment is directed by Joe Dante of "Piranha", "The Howling", and "Gremlins" fame. It features a non-speaking cameo by one of his longtime regulars, actor Dick Miller (too bad he didn't get to do more).

The first story, "The Girl with Golden Breasts", comes courtesy of actress Phoebe (Rachel Veltri), who relates the story of a breast enhancement surgery with truly horrific complications. Far and away the silliest story in the movie, it does however deliver sex, nudity, and gore in an enjoyably campy way. It's directed by Ken Russell, who's known for flamboyance in his films such as "Tommy", "Altered States", and "Crimes of Passion". Look for the director in a cameo as "Dr. Lucy"(!).

Next, in "Jibaku", married couple Henry (Scott Lowell) and Julia (Lara Harris) have their Japanese vacation (literally, a vacation in hell) exposed. Combining animation and other horrific special effects imagery, it's highly unlike anything that director Sean S. Cunningham ("Friday the 13th") has done before. Seeing his name on this, I found it engaging that he was lured back to a directors' chair, and he comes up with a surreal, creepy, and intense shocker.

Screenwriter Leo (John Saxon) next gets to tell his story in "Stanley's Girlfriend". Based on director Stanley Kubricks' early years in Hollywood, it stands apart from the other entries in this anthology. Directed by Monte Hellman ("Two-Lane Blacktop", "The Shooting", "Ride in the Whirlwind", and "Cockfighter"), it's a low-key mood piece with good acting and a nice Old Hollywood feeling.

Finally, Nathalie (Michele-Barbara Pelletier) unfolds the tale of "My Twin - The Worm", in which she reveals that her mother had a parasite - a tapeworm - in her body at the same time that she was pregnant. Instead of being repulsed by such knowledge, Nathalie more than anything feels something of a bond with her unlikely "twin". This tale is as creepy as the second and marks some good work by special effects expert John Gaeta ("The Matrix") in a sound directing debut.

The denouement for this film is, unfortunately, too similar to other "twist" endings that I've seen, diminishing the overall effect a little.

But it's still an interesting and ambitious effort, with a generous array of talent in front of and behind the camera. Reportedly inspired by stories that were strange but true (!), the tales that Bartok came up with are pretty entertaining. The combination of sex, gore, shocks, and general all-around nastiness makes for a good little horror film.

7/10


Anthology films rarely work for me. Most of them are as uneven as twenty miles of bad road. TRAPPED ASHES was yet another bumpy ride.

Six people are trapped in a room and must relate terrible things that they've had happen to them to their host (Henry Gibson). What follows are four segments directed by auteurs not necessarily known for their horror chops (with the possible exception of Sean S. Cunningham). Each segment prominently features the ties between sex and death so prevalent in horror films. One features a woman with vampiric breasts whose lamprey mouthed nipples sucks the blood of her lovers. Another woman falls for a corpse who whisks her away to hell while on Japanese holiday. A succubus falls for Stanley Kubrick. And the last, poor woman shares the insatiable hunger of her fraternal twin, a tapeworm.

The first segment sets up expectations that TRAPPED ASHES will be a much more lighthearted film. Surprisingly, this segment was directed by Ken Russell though it felt like something from Joe Dante or Paul Bartel (it was especially reminiscent of Irvin Kershner's "Hell Toupee" episode of "Amazing Stories"). The Sean S. Cunningham sequence felt like a pail gaijin aping of Hideo Nakata (THE RING) and John Gaeta's just didn't work at all. I enjoyed the Kubrick bit, courtesy of Monte Hellman - a perennial Cashiers du Cinemart fave - except that the horror element seemed like an afterthought.

Surprised that this wasn't called TALES FROM THE CRYPT: TRAPPED ASHES, this is one that can be missed by all except die hard John Saxon fans.


Why would a smart and creative guy like Dennis Bartok come up with an embarrassing, insipid, boring, unfunny and revolting piece of pseudo-porn like "Trapped Ashes"?

If this is his tribute to "Tales From the Crypt," "Creepshow" and "The Vault of Horror," Bartok has seriously lost his way... and Freddie Francis is probably rolling over in his grave about now. Maybe Bartok should have made that story instead: clueless wannabe screenwriter desecrates legacy of legendary British director of "Tales From the Crypt," causing famed director to rise from dead and turn idiot writer-producer into Hamburger Helper.

So why did Bartok do it? Maybe he thought by rounding up a few veteran directors, his picture was in the bag -- no matter how awful the writing was. Or maybe he had an unconscious desire to destroy his chances of ever making it in this business. Hard to say. His therapist is probably the only one who knows for sure

But one thing's for sure: Bartok can kiss his Hollywood career goodbye!


Wow. Where to begin? This anthology offers a whirlwind of styles, moods and horrific situations. I found some of it to be deeply unsettling: scenes & moments stayed with me for days (vampire breasts = more disturbing than you may think; rotting corpse lovers; nightmarish "womb with a view" recollections).

The talent on display is simply amazing. Ken (TOMMY, LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM) Russell, Sean (FRIDAY THE 13TH) Cunningham, Monte (TWO LANE BLACKTOP) Hellman (name checked in an REM song too!), John (THE MATRIX Trology SFX supervisor) and lastly but not leastly, Joe (GREMLINS) Dante.

I've seen a few message board comments trashing this movie, but let me tell you an opposing POV. This movie reflects the talents of the directors who took the time to make it. This is not SCREAM or THE RING (US) or THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE. TRAPPED ASHES goes down it's own odd and disquieting pathway to hell. It has a decidedly literary flavor, although its shocks are as unpleasant & visceral as any classic horror film.

There's some cool acting talent along for the ride; Henry Gibson plays a man with a venomous secret; John Saxon plays a man haunted by the specter of long lost lust; Tahmoh Penikett, who plays Helo on SciFi Channel's amazing BATTLESTAR GALACTICA series, plays Saxon's younger self, a man who lets a succubus destroy a friendship and a life; even director Ken Russell gets in a hilariously strange cameo role.

Check your expectations at the door. TRAPPED ASHES is a horror movie unlike most you may have seen. It's an absolute MUST for hard core fans of the genre...


This movie temporarily lost my sex drive with blood sucking boobs, weird Japanese demonic molestations, a blood sucking succubus, and finally an overgrown tapeworm and the little girl that loved it.

I've seen movies like Tales From the Crypt and Tales from the Hood. Trapped Ashes (known as Death House in Japan) clearly fell along these plot lines in the wrap around segment. It is clearly obvious that this was directed by 5 people with the different settings. The short stories were unique but they all amounted for an uneven and mismatched hodgepodge.

I could dissect each story line on a different paragraph, but this movie isn't worth much more of my review. But to summarize...

Blood Sucking Boob segment - Boobs look nice on Phoebe but it was just weird. Okay I guess.

Japanese Demon segment - Started out good, but it clashed with the brief animated features.

Best Friends girl segment - Again started out decent, but dragged me to the point of boredom.

Tapeworm segment - Should have been a made-for Sci-Fi channel special. Crappy.

And finally they all meet their "end" with plot twists that the writer pulled out of his buttocks in order to "piece it all together".

I think the biggest flaw was that there wasn't any real consistency in the flow of Trapped Ashes. If this was directed by one or two directors it would have been pulled off a little better. Also, Trapped Ashes had ZERO fear factor in it. Although the Blood Sucking Boob segment was rather disturbing. It had a cheesy Science Fiction feel to it.

Overall, I can't really recommend this movie primarily due to its over all sub par execution, it's not atrocious but this definitely is a forgettable film. I can say that the 5 directors at least tried to piece together a creative masterpiece but they fell very short.


I give this 3 stars mostly because of the acting. I truly did think the acting was great in this movie. Making people forget those Vincent Price anthologies or Tales from the Crypt shows, is not going to happen. These stories were written by a horny drunkard or so it seems. They were absolutely ridiculous. No imagination went into this. This was basically one of those stupid late cable sex programs with a tinge of Freddy Krueger infused. I did manage to sit thru the whole thing , hoping for at least one good story. The best part of this movie was the interaction of the 'trapped' , before and in between the horror stories. Way too goth for me, but if thats your thing you may like this film. Articulate acting - Yes, good movie- No!


Six people are taking a tour of Ultra Studios when they get trapped in a haunted house (that's not usually on the tour, but they have VIP passes). They.along with their tour guide, have some horror stories to tell in the hopes of breaking free from the house somehow.

Phoebe is first and opts to tell the story of how she got implants from a human cadaver in order to help advance her movie career. But these tits are hungry for flesh. Directed by Ken Russell, this segment was slightly over the top and fun (in a rather stupid way), but didn't really go anywhere and had a non-ending. It came off like a disregarded idea from that Playboy awful "Inside Out" series from the '90's.

Next up is married couple, Julia and Henry, who tell the tale of their trip to Japan and an ill-fated painting that leads to a Buddhist monk who possesses the wife, driving her crazy. Aside from some nifty animation toward the end of this Sean S. Cunningham directed short, I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed by this one.

Leo (the great John Saxon) gets to tell the third story, of him and his friend, Stanley. With parallels to Stanley Kubrick's early career (not the supernatural tinge to it obviously) this was the most interesting of the quintet of stories that comprised the film. But it's a bit on the dry side and doesn't really fit in with the other four stories in the least. Also since this tale can be seen apart from this film in other places, I'd recommend that rather than sitting through this whole film merely for this one part.

Lastly, a tale is told of Nathalie and her 'twin', a parasitic worm, whom she has a strong bond with. The saved the worst for last it seemed (excluding the lame endings to each tale provided at the end of the film) as this story is trite, boring & uninteresting. The less said of it the better.

This sad little anthology concludes with the lame wraparound that can be guessed from the start it's so predictable.

Eye Candy: Rachel Veltri gets topless; Lara Harris provides the T&A

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: 'filmmakers & cast' commentary; 13 & a half minutes of deleted scenes;the director's cut of 'Staneley's Girlfriend'; the original cut of 'girl with golden Breasts'; A look inside featurette (divided into 5 parts) and trailers for the Midnight Meat Train, Bone Eater, Side Sho, the Bank Job, the Eye, & Rambo


Okay so maybe I'm a wimp or maybe I had legitimate medical reasons for fainting, but the fact is I do watch tons of horror films, volunteer regularly for a horror magazine, and this has never happened before. I should have fainted to Ichi the Killer, or Brain Dead, or f*ck, even the cockroach sequence in Creepshow- but no, the segment to knock me out was "The girl with the golden breasts" which was a story about this gorgeous chick who's boob implant goes horribly wrong. Following the episode I went to the doctor, got a blood test, EKG, had my blood pressure taken, a full out exam- and was told that I was probably dehydrated, my body type is lean and more susceptible. I was working crazy hours, attending midnight screenings, the theater was stuffy, and blah blah blah. I'm a guy who writes horror scripts! I've become jaded as a writer because I've found it increasingly hard to scare myself. I'd like to think I'm tougher than that, but damn. The feeling came on like dimensional twist- like I was fighting to stay in my body- my perspective was pulsing, disorientation followed, then the unfightable desire to go and splash some water on my face. I should have stayed in my seat. Instead, I went out to the lobby, came crashing down- busted open my eyebrow...and have no memory of the fall. To preserve my dignity- and see if it really was an epileptic thing, I attended the second screening, and am happy to say I survived- didn't faint or feel feverish throughout all the five stories, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I am totally into exploitation horror movies, and this one has plenty of it-- Though I would have liked to have seen more gore- the squeamish parts could have been expanded, made more sadistic, especially in the tape worm story-- the film as a whole reminded me of those old pulp EC horror comics I used to read as a kid. The lighting had echoes of Argento's Suspiria... The main score was effectively creepy, the director's styles were pretty varied adding some interesting textures to the whole, and I hope the people at Tales from the Crypt scoop up this team for another go at it- this time adding takashi miike to the roster to go full out into the lactating boob horror.


I attended the premiere midnight screening of this film at the Toronto Film Festival last night and would have to say I'm severely disappointed. Going in, I had moderate to good expectations considering the talent and pedigree of the director's involved, and my hopes were dashed almost immediately. I highly respect these filmmaker's, but you get the feeling watching this that they didn't have a lot of creative control overall.

One thing must be made clear at this point: although a team of director's collaborated, it was all written by one man. And shot by the same cinematographer. And edited by the same team. These three areas (as well as the acting) are what really bring the film down. It's lazily written, unoriginal and clichéd to a fault. Everything is there, and we've seen it all before.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, as it was mentioned that this is a throwback to the Amicus and Hammer anthology pictures, but I digress - those films at least felt alive. This is a movie with no real characters, just carcitures to get dispatched as the writing sees fit.

The various cameos are fun, but they wink too much at the audience and in some cases (like the random transformation of a security guard into Dick Miller) are absolutely pointless.

SPOILERS: There are entertaining ideas, but they've all been done before: killer transplants, vengeful spirits, immortal succubi, killer aborted twin... the list goes on. Worst of all is the ending, in which the character I'll just call "Grandpa Exposition" openly says "you each forgot the endings of your own story" and then explains how.... drum-roll... everyone is dead ad caught in some kind of limbo (it's a twist you could predict by reading the name of the film).

Altogether it is a waste of two hours and a lot of talent. Rent it and watch in fast forward, or skip it all together.


I am so sick of low budget crap movies that try to propagandize with getting their "people" to come here and vote 10's to try and raise feces to a work of art. This is a horrible movie. Period. Lousy direction and acting, a story line that could have been oh, so much more. IMDb may use algorithms and secret formulas to try and limit "stuffing", but it is simply not working. To each their own, but, I think it is an awful movie. I watched part of the movie, but couldn't even bring myself to use bandwidth to pirate. Not "Sraight to Video", straight to coaster and into the garbage. I am reluctant to call this the "worst movie ever", (since there are too many doofae who do that, but ,IMHO, should be considered.


This collection of four horror tales consists of five directors who are all conditioned to fall short due some terrible material here! Attempting to pull off an anthology in the tradition of "Creepshow" and "Tales from the Crypt", "Trapped Ashes" simply embarrasses the film makers it under-utilizes with obstructed short concepts that contain not an ounce of wit, clever construction or creepiness, which makes it a horrible waste. The wrap-around story - directed by Joe Dante ("Pirhana" and "The Howling") - begins with a group of tourists who are allowed by their guide to explore the set of an old horror movie (a lop-sided "haunted" house), but soon find themselves hopelessly trapped inside. Apparently, the key to escaping is to tell non-fictional scary tales about personal experiences. The first story - directed by Ken Russell ("Gothic" and "Altered States") - IS probably the most enjoyable since it features the most nudity and gore of the entire movie and is about an aspiring young actress whose breast implants have a vicious thirst for blood... The second - directed by Sean Cunningham ("A Stranger is Watching" and "Friday the 13th") is a lame-ass "ghost story" set in Japan that makes no sense. The third - director Monte Hellman ("Two-lane Blacktop" and "The Terror") - struggles to be the "classy" story about a young screen-writer who falls in love with his best friend's chick who turns out to be a blood drinker... Boring and senseless! The fourth, and thankfully final, segment - by John Gaeta ("The Matrix") - is a pretentious, go-nowhere short about a girl who was born with a tape worm in the womb! Really!? THAT'S what they consider a "horror story"? I would recommend just checking out the first segment since it has nipples biting people in the face... Otherwise, this is just weak!


In his autobiography, C. B. Demille indicated that he found the greatest compliment ever given to the film was during an IRS audit. The agent doing the audit was astonished that a film that good didn't make any money.

The historian and author Harold Lamb was instrumental in the scripting. Demille wanted the flavor of the Crusades in the one film, so The Hermit was used to outline the cause of the Crusades, and was used to "compress" the timeline to the Third Crusade. He also wanted to show that Saladin was as "knightly" as any of the Crusaders.

The film provides spectacle throughout, from ceremonies to battles, but that was Demille's style. The political intrigue in the background was more pronounced in this film than behind-the-scenes activities in . other Demille films, but that touch may have been Mr. Lamb's.

I first saw this on television, many years ago, by accident. It wasn't scheduled, but I happened to tune in to it when it started. It caught my attention, and I was hooked. It's one of his better films. It's also an interesting contrast to Kingdom of Heaven.


A playboy king & a beautiful princess. A holy hermit & a sacred mission. Intrigue & romance & sin & spectacle. In fact, another Cecil B. DeMille history lesson.

This time, DeMille takes on THE CRUSADES, a highly complex military & political enterprise that actually played out over 200 years. He focuses on one episode: The Third Crusade & England's King Richard the Lionheart's thrust to claim Jerusalem & the Holy Land from the Seljuk Turks in 1188-1192. Interestingly enough, DeMille gets a lot of his historical facts correct, but he does spend quite a bit of time detailing Richard's lustful, wanton ways.

Literature & film have tended to wildly romanticize Richard. In historical fact, he was a bad king interested primarily in his own glory. He spent only 6 months of his reign in Britain, he bankrupted the Treasury with his Crusading schemes and he abandoned his young wife. But such is the power of Romance that he is generally seen as the beau ideal of kingliness.

Henry Wilcoxon is a good, sturdy, if unspectacular, Richard. Loretta Young is beautiful, as always, as the Princess he marries. Sir C. Aubrey Smith is magnificent as the Holy Hermit who is the spiritual leader of the Crusade. Others in the fine cast are Alan Hale, Joseph Schildkraut, Mischa Auer & John Carradine (pay close attention to find him).

As a master of spectacle, DeMille really comes through towards the end of the film with the siege & capture of Acre (north of present day Haifa in Israel).All the stops are pulled out to show the full panoply & horror of mediaeval battle.


Having witnessed the flop of his last few contemporary dramatic pictures, Cecil B. DeMille made a pledge to the public that from now on he would only make epics. True to his word, he strove to make each successive picture more stupendous than the last. He had made some very effective shoestring epics in the poverty-stricken early 30s, but by 1935 the worst of the depression was over and DeMille could at last be reunited with the big budget.

While DeMille had proved on Sign of the Cross (1932) and Cleopatra (1934) that he could make a big picture without masses of extras or impressive sets, he certainly knows how to make the most of those assets when he does have them. It is in The Crusades that we see the development of the style of presentation that he employed for all his subsequent epics. Rather than bombard us with the colossal, he likes to gradually reveal the vastness of a place by slowly and smoothly pulling the camera back. During these moves he usually has an extra or two move horizontally across the frame at a similar pace to the camera, giving the manoeuvre extra grace and momentum. Then there are the battle scenes, tense and frenzied creations of Anne Bauchen's superb editing. These are similar to the ones in Cleopatra, but far more effective, not because of the higher production values, but because the shots are held for longer and their sequencing is better timed.

And while DeMille clearly loves the massive crowd shot, he has enough sense to shrink the space and simplify the setting when it comes to key dialogue scenes. Compared to the busy outdoor locations many of the interiors are quite plain, which helps to focus us entirely on the actors, their expressions and their words. The transitions to these dramatic moments are often very smooth, with the drop of a tent flap or simply a change of angle to frame the actors against a bare wall. DeMille was an expert in turning the spectacle on and off, as it were, according to the demands of the narrative.

Given the above, it's a pity that, like most DeMille pictures of this era, The Crusades is dramatically rather weak. The dialogue is bland, and most of the characters are lazily-written stereotypes. In the early scenes, there seems to have been this attempt to cram in as many "Olde Englande" accessories as possible, with a cheeky minstrel, a burly blacksmith, the king and his court all hanging out together. Mind you, there is at least a fairly decent character arc in that King Richard is portrayed as a kind of medieval cad who joins the crusade for ulterior motives, but is eventually humbled by his experiences. It's also a refreshingly mature approach to make Saladin an honourable foe, although there is of course still the obligatory moustachioed villain in the form of some anachronistic minor king (played by Joseph Schildkraut, naturally).

After having suffered Henry Wilcoxon's wooden turn as Mark Anthony in Cleopatra, it's a major disappointment to see him again in a leading role. You might wonder why DeMille so persistently cast amateurs like Wilcoxon, until you realise he selected players primarily for their physicality, their talent being of secondary concern. In this light it makes sense for Wilcoxon, with his prominent brow and broad shoulders, to play a king. And although Joseph Schildkraut was, as it happens, a very good actor, DeMille repeatedly cast him as these Judas figures because of his thin face and piercing eyes.

But this is DeMille. Script and cast will always play second fiddle to the director's showmanship. Despite all the baloney and anachronism, his visual style is on top form here. The Crusades is like a stained-glass window in a church. It will not reach us on an emotional, human level, but it is full of grace and majesty. Yes, DeMille is often called a Victorian moralist, but in his presentation and imagery he was practically medieval. And we should forgive him, because he did it so well.


After the release of Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and 70 years after the premiere of DeMille's CRUSADES, I found it interesting to see the film. Cecil B DeMille is usually associated with ancient or biblical epics like TEN COMMANDMENTS, CLEOPATRA, KING OF KINGS or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. However, after the two great epics of the early 1930s, he made a movie about a different historical period, the infamous crusades that aimed at protecting the Holy Land from the Muslim "infidels". The problem with this film, however, is that it looks historical but contains serious historical inaccuracies. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a serious historical epic and it is not a history lesson whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting movie being an authentic look at DeMille's talents and a real 1930s movie. Consequently, it can still touch some of the 21 century viewers, particularly classic movie fans.

CHARACTERS: Most of the names that we hear in THE CRUSADES are historical. They are, however, showed in a different perspective and addressed to the audiences of that time. DeMille calls our attention foremost to Richard the Lionheart (Henry Wilcoxon) and his lovely wife princess Berengaria (Loretta Young). Richard is a man of courage, a king who, unlike other kings, is close to his people. But, he joins the crusade due to entirely different reasons than other kings. He does not have any faith in the cross he is to wear but wants to escape marriage with Alice (Katherine DeMille), the sister of Philip, king of France. On the way to the Holy Land, he meets the love of his life, Berengaria, a very noble and pure lady who, in the long run, changes Richard into a peacemaker and believer. These two characters are very well developed and their plot has much to say to today's viewer: the love between a man and a woman does not have to be based on sex only. Their love is mostly a spiritual love rather than sexual one (so appreciated by Medieval people). It is showed a bit humorously in the moment when Richard dares jump into his wife's bed, dedicated to John, Matthew, Luke and Mark... Another character that needs mentioning is the Hermit (C.Aubrey Smith). This is a man of great courage and faith whose sole aim in life is the cross. "Take the Cross to your hearts," as he says to the people in England gathered to join the crusade is a particularly powerful moment.

CAST: Even though Henry Wilcoxon plays the main role, he is not that good in this movie. As a matter of fact, I far more liked his performance in CLEOPATRA (1934). His acting, behavior of a proud man suits Antony very well but does not suit Richard that well. Stars who deserve highest attention in this movie are C.Aubrey Smith as the Hermit, Ian Keith as Saladin, and Joseph Schildkraut as Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat. Smith memorably presents a stereotypical hermit (this face and this voice!), Keith stresses Saladin's wisdom and an indefatigable desire to defend his religion. He shines in the scene when visiting the royal assembly. Finally Schildkraut undeniably deserves careful attention in his magnificent portrayal of conspiring Conrad. It is true that his role is distorted historically, but he does, in this performance alone, a terrific job. Loretta Young's performance, however, is far from masterpiece. Sometimes, she is sweeter than chocolate with sugar.

DIFFERENT DeMILLE: It is noticeable that THE CRUSADES, though an epic, concentrates more on message rather than lavish sets and costumes. As a result, DeMille is less noticeable than in lavish CLEOPATRA or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. What we get here is the story, vivid characters, message of peace. That is very important to state since a lot of people associate DeMille ONLY with sets, visual effects, costumes and bathes. Here, he gives something more. It is true that there are monumental moments, like the siege of Acre or a touching scene of crusaders leaving their families for the Holy Land, but they are not in the main focus.

This film is filled with one more thing that I consider significant to mention, SYMBOLISM. It is in other DeMille's movies too, but never that much as in THE CRUSADES. The most memorable moment is a scene of salvation. Simple crusaders die and just before their last breath, they desire to touch the Cross. They climb high steps enlightened by the light coming from above. It is similar to Christians going to arena in THE SIGH OF THE CROSS, but here, it really seems that DeMille wanted to show a vision of heaven.

In the end, the film shows the victory of peace. It is a historical fairy tale but partly refers to the period of peace between Christians and Muslims termed by Saladin. This led another director to make a movie, 70 years later... THE CRUSADES, however, is still entertaining in some way. It is not for historians, but a must see for all DeMille's fans and all people interested in early talkies. 7/10!


Whatever else you can say about Richard I, the Lion Hearted he was a mighty warrior in battle. In fact he loved wars and battles so much he spent very little time ruling his own kingdom. Remembering that his kingdom was not just England, but a good deal of what is now France, it is estimated that he may have spent at most, six months on the British Isles.

Not that his brother John was any bargain. But Richard and his wars cost his people a great deal in taxation. England was in medieval chapter 11 after he was done.

Yet his legend as a warrior lives on, perpetuated greatly by Cecil B. DeMille and this film. It's a typical DeMille product characterized by topflight spectacle and action scenes and some arcane dialog, the kind that was used when DeMille was learning his trade from David Belasco in the early 20th century.

DeMille sent out for his leading lady, over to Fox for Loretta Young. I'm sure Ms. Young was more than happy to star in The Crusades as she, Irene Dunne, and Rosalind Russell were THE three Catholic stars of the screen. Young plays Berengaria of Navarre who has the dubious distinction of being the only Queen of England never to set foot on English soil.

Berengaria, here and in real life, was a political pawn in an arranged marriage. Richard was supposed to marry Princess Alice of France, played here by Katharine DeMille. But for the real story of who Richard would have married in a love match, check out The Lion In Winter. Berengaria survived her husband by about 30 years. I'm sure in real life she was one lonely person.

DeMille tried hard to make his good friend Henry Wilcoxon a star, both here and in Cleopatra. Wilcoxon as an actor did far better away from C.B. than with him. He's probably best known for playing the Vicar in Mrs. Miniver.

It's hard to sympathize with Richard. Even in this favorable treatment of him, he comes across like a blundering fool. He goes to The Crusades in the first place to get out of marrying Alice because any promises would be absolved if he went on Crusade to reclaim Jerusalem for Christendom. And after that it's one blunder after another.

Remember in Patton George C. Scott remarks how much he enjoys all the combat and how Karl Malden chides him for just that. The plain truth is that was what got Richard going in the morning. Sex with whomever didn't measure up to a good battle.

Ian Keith as Saladin comes off far better. He was a genuine warrior hero defending his kingdom, as chivalrous a person as the Christian knights claim to be. And politically he spins rings around Richard. So does the wily Conrad of Montferrat as played by Joseph Schildkraut. Another reviewer described him as unctuous. That's the word that fits him best. In fact in a later role in The Shop Around the Corner, Schildkraut practically patented unctuous for the screen.

The spectacle is grand, the Battle of Acre was one of the most ambitious screen undertakings up to that point. But a Victorian script and a fool for a hero defeats this film.

I'd recommend the recent Kingdom of Heaven for a more accurate depiction of The Cruades. I'd even recommend King Richard and the Crusaders with George Sanders as Richard and Rex Harrison as Saladin as being better.


To begin with, being a fan of the epic genre, I had always wanted to check this one out and, in fact, was very pleased when Universal released it as part of their 5-Disc Cecil B. De Mille collection; however, since I already owned both THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932) and CLEOPATRA (1934) via TCM showings, I kept postponing the purchase of this set  until I acquired the lot through a friend of my father's! Having been duly impressed with those two De Mille spectaculars, I had intended to watch this immediately (I got the film around the middle of last year) but for various reasons  I even had to exclude it from my Christmas viewing  I could only get to it now that Easter is approaching!

Incidentally, the 5th of March happened to mark the centenary from the birth of actor Rex Harrison, who had starred as Saladin (the villainous 'infidel' of THE CRUSADES) in KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS (1954), which I recorded off Italian TV (even if I had already watched it and in spite of its poor reputation) expressly for the purpose of accompanying my viewing of De Mille's film! Anyway, THE CRUSADES is another notable achievement (from the days prior to the epic heyday of the 1950s and 1960s) which goes to prove  yet again  that De Mille was perhaps cinema's greatest purveyor of hokum disguised as inspirational art for the masses (even if this particular example, reportedly, flopped at the box-office).

The central relationship between gorgeous Loretta Young (such strong female presences abound in the director's work) and De Mille regular Henry Wilcoxon (an unusually handsome, and Godless, Richard the Lionheart  amusingly referred to by Saladin as "The Lion King"!) goes through some interesting, yet oddly believable, tangents during the course of the film. Starting off in antagonistic vein more typical of then-current screwball comedies (he even prefers carousing with his men to their wedding ceremony, where his place is eventually taken by the royal sword!), it develops into one that borders on amour fou  which could jeopardize the outcome of the whole crusade (it's actually comparable to the bond-to-the-death between Roman centurion Fredric March and Christian slave Elissa Landi in the earlier THE SIGN OF THE CROSS)! The excellent supporting cast includes, among others, Ian Keith (as Saladin), Joseph Schildkarut (typically sneaky as one of the Christian rulers), C. Henry Gordon (as the French King, whose sister Katharine De Mille  the director's adopted daughter  Richard has deliberately spurned), Alan Hale (as Richard's minstrel/sidekick, a Little John type that would soon become his trademark), C. Aubrey Smith (as the old hermit who is challenged by the overly confident Saladin at the beginning of the picture to rally the Christian countries in a crusade against his forces and, later, made hostage and chained to a cross to bar passage to the advancing army, he asks Richard to proceed with the attack regardless!) and Mischa Auer (in an early role as a monk).

While the script obviously eschews the Robin Hood legend that has become associated with Richard and the Crusades (the Douglas Fairbanks version of 1922 about that popular outlaw figure, in fact, spends more time with him as a knight than the proverbial 'Merrie Man'!), subtlety is still the last thing one would hope to find in a De Mille pageant. In fact, Young's abduction by the Muslims (with her dressed as a sentry in a suicidal bid to end the discord between the various royals!) is pretty contrived; similarly, the fact that Young is contended in the terms laid down by Saladin for the truce with the Christian world is pure Hollywood. With this in mind, the dialogue (co-written by Dudley Nichols) is consciously stilted throughout  albeit featuring such good lines as Saladin's defiant claim to the monarchs gathered in their tent, "There is room enough in Asia to bury all of you!"

Made after the dreaded (and stifling) Hays Code came into force, it's not as bloodthirsty as the afore-mentioned THE SIGN OF THE CROSS  even so, the battle scenes are quite realistic (with the clanging of heavy steel being heard as the opposing armies clash in a confusion of warriors and horses) and may well have influenced Sergei Eisenstein's Alexander NEVSKY (1938). There is one evident display of viciousness here on an isolated member of Schildkraut's treacherous army as a clutch of Muslim riders (appearing on the scene to rescue the cornered Wilcoxon at the instigation of Saladin himself, in the hope of thus winning Young's love) fall on him en masse with their spears. Boasting superlative photography (Victor Milner's work in this capacity presented the film with its sole Oscar nomination) and massive crowd scenes, the film survives as tremendous entertainment even after all these years. Incidentally, it seemed common practice in spectacles of the era to provide villains of the Muslim persuasion  as can be gathered from the likes of ABDUL THE DAMNED (1935; a British production I first watched over Christmas), THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (1935), THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) and GUNGA DIN (1939).


The name De Mille evokes big sets, big costumes and bigger action and Crusades was his follow up to his earlier take on Christian oration from the scandalous - in a good way - Sign of the cross. Henry Wilcoxson, his Marc Anthony of Cleopatra and the always beautiful Loretta Young team up in this extravagant epic. King Richard the Lionheart is not a Christian and is not faithful to the ways of the sign of the cross but to escape a forced marriage he signs up for the Crusades to free the holy city of Jerusalem. Of course, there is scheming behind his back to seize his throne while he is gone. Along the way he trades for a wife, Loretta and haggles and argues with his other European leaders. Now, it has often not be said for it is almost as if De Mille build big sets and big stories to tell little moments for all his excess, his movies are ridiculously dialogue driven, even by the standards of the other expensive blockbuster-type movies made back then. De Mille loved dialogue scenes and focusing on character. Very strange. And this movie is really a politics and character movie as the future of Europe is argued and royal pompous exposed. The action sequences are obvious studio sets but well shot. The final moments have good heart that is not forced but earned. Thus, is this a good movie. It is hard to say because for every good scene there is a juvenile scene obviously put in to satiate the masses. Good direction though, very good direction. That said, Crusades lost money when first released, if you only look at its Domestic boxoffice rentals but was the biggest grossing movie of its year.


Artists' depictions of the crusades have been presented through songs, paintings, stories, and other forms of popular media for centuries and one way this act is done today is through film. One particularly accessible film about the crusades is Cicel B. DeMille's 1935 epic adventure The Crusades. DeMille is known for some of the most epic films in the Golden Age of Hollywood and many of his films often dealt with religion. The Ten Commandments (1959), Sampson And Delilah (1949), The Sign Of The Cross (1934), and The King Of Kings (1927) are perfect examples of DeMille's religiously toned epic films  if you need a guy to make you a religious epic in the 1930s, DeMille is the guy to do it.

The film centers on the English King, Richard the Lionhearted, and his journey to the Holy Land to fight in the Third Crusade. But rather than tell a historically-based story of Richard's time in the Levant, the film tells a very fictionalized and watered-down account of the crusades to seemingly heighten the entertainment factor of its action/adventure/romance story. The Crusades sees Richard meeting and marrying Princess Berengaria on the route to the Holy Land to fight in the Third Crusade and then having to rescue her when she is captured by Muslim leader Saladin, who has fallen in love with her. Anyone who knows anything about the crusades is laughing out loud right now (or is at least giggling a little bit inside). By changing the story into almost a Robin Hood story (where Maid Marion is kidnapped by the Sheriff of Nottingham), DeMille creates a more average crowd-pleasing Hollywood story rather than an intelligent cinematic recreation of the Third Crusade.

King Richard has been described at the time of the crusades as a brilliant military mind  a strong, imposing, and daring man in his early 30s. Also, Richard is known to have had great religious zeal, vowing to take up the cross after hearing of the aftermath of the Battle of Hattin and even using his own riches to finance the crusade. The Crusades, through actor Henry Wilcoxon's boring performance, does portray Richard as a young and strong swashbuckler of a King but the film glances over any sort of military know-how that Richard may have had. Richard is the film's hero and conquers many Saracen foes, but there is little rhyme or reason to his attacks. Also, Richard is not the religious man that history describes, as the film tries to add depth to the character by having him struggle with his religion. In fact, the main reason Richard even takes up the cross in the movie is so that he can get out of marrying King Philip's sister (as he heard a holy man say that all earthly oaths will be erased once a person takes up the cross) and he is only motivated to attack Acre and Jerusalem when his wife is taken by Saladin. King Richard comes off as more of a joke Errol Flynn imposter than a Lion King.

Other characters do not get historically sound representations either. The film's portrayal of King Philip II Augustus of France through C. Henry Gordon is the complete opposite to how history describes Philip and Saladin also receives a romanticized and westernized portrayal. Ever since the time of the Third Crusade, Saladin has often been painted as a chivalric opponent by westerners and Ian Keith's performance of Saladin in The Crusades certainly falls in line with the "chivalrous hero of the West" style portrayal of Saladin. Rather than portray Saladin as the ruthless yet often merciful Muslim military mind, Keith and the film portray Saladin very similarly to a European crusader. The way he stands, the way he talks, and the way he interacts with the European crusaders is not very different than how the film's European heroes walk, talk, and interact. If he did not talk about Allah so much throughout the film, one would confuse him for a European ruler.

The Crusades definitely paints a positive picture of the crusades and crusading, sometimes in very extreme ways. While the quite historically inaccurate and freaking weird love triangle between King Richard, Berengaria, and Saladin is the main focus of the film, Christianity is also clearly a primary element. The Crusades paints the European crusaders as having great zeal for their religion and thinking of nothing else when deciding whether or not to take up the cross and fight Muslims in the Holy Land. One scene is especially interesting in how the film presents Christianity and the crusaders: after the battle for Acre, a soldier who is weak and dying in King Richard's arms says, is in a blissful state, that he is dying but he "touched the 'True Cross.'" As Richard takes the soldier back to see the "True Cross" again, the film displays a small crowd of soldiers and religious men struck stiff with awe as they are showered in the thick white light of the "True Cross," crawling towards it like a grasshopper crawling to an outdoor streetlight. Truly getting a powerfully religious experience, these crusaders are finding what they were looking for on this crusade: not blood or riches, but a religious experience.

Like most films, the primary focus of DeMille's 1935 film The Crusades is to entertain the viewer, which it ultimately does and does not at the same time. The film is well shot (earning a Best Cinematography Oscar nomination) and has some good action scenes (for the 1930s anyway  come one, when is it not fun to watch soldiers pour burning tar on an invading army?). However, The Crusades includes a heavy amount of dated cheesy humor and butchers history with its characters. The fact that this film is not historically accurate does not make the film bad but the way that the film destroys history makes the film ridiculous.


Now, the Crusades are not only historically an exercise in grandeur, bigotry, and hubris, but often are portrayed as such in films, even in modern ones that lay claims to "anti-war" justification for the carnage that they show. Seeing a movie from the 30s, by a man who uses Christian topics often, wouldn't you expect more of the same? I did, and was sorely mistaken. Cecil B. DeMille's "The Crusades" is actually a romance movie about a man who learns humility and grace through love.

That man is Richard the Lionheart (Henry Wilcoxon), who joins the Third Crusade to show off his brawn and evade a political marriage. Ironically, in order to even make it to the battle, he is forced into another political marriage, and even more ironic than that, upon meeting his new wife he falls helplessly in love. Of course, that doesn't mean the way is paved for a happily-ever-after unless he learns to do something with that pesky arrogance and militancy he has. This, surprisingly enough, leads him to rediscover Christianity and learn a humble grace that seems a contradiction to the usual (and also, ehrm, historical) image of the Crusades.

The actual battle scenes are kept to minimum, but they're surprisingly harsh and visceral. I expected, due to the era, for DeMille's battle scenes to be poetic justification for large levels of carnage, but perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with a large part of DeMille's work, perhaps because of my own immersion into the primary sources of the Crusades, I ended up completely mesmerized by a much starker anti-war message than any contemporary film has fully justified for me. Add to this a very crafty script that quietly and gracefully clears up all promises, ties up loose ends, and creates a completely believable mix of unique characterizations, and DeMille's "Crusades" ends up being a very delicious and powerful romantic story.

I've not previously been very interested in DeMille's career beyond his importance to Hollywood and film history, but this movie made it clear that he is an expert craftsman and artist.

--PolarisDiB


THE CRUSADES is a film of awesome power with some of the finest costumes, epic battles and all the pagentry expected of the legendary Cecil B. DeMille. Henry Wilcoxon's Richard the Lionheart gives (along with his star turn as Marc Anthony in DeMille's CLEOPATRA the previous year) the greatest performance of his entire career. Mesmerizing in its power, just as effective today as when it was filmed in 1935. A must-see for all who esteem the epic/spectacle genre. Fine performances given by an all-star cast right down to DeMille regulars in supporting roles. They don't get much better than this!


The Secret of Bigfoot was to me, the halfway point of the Six Million Dollar Man series. The show took its first turn toward the direction of Science Fiction with the introduction of the Bionic Bigfoot played by Andre the Giant as well as the hidden colony of alien beings. I loved Stephanie Powers character and her attraction to Steve. The initial battle between Steve and the Sasquatch is a highlight of this 2 part episode. Oddly enough, I think this may have been the start of late 70's scifi shows with alien beings in polyester jumpsuits, cheesy special effects and laser beams, and giant monitor screens for communications. In addition to the SMDM, the Bionic Woman series as well as Wonder Woman, Battlestar Galactica, and Buck Rogers were all notorious for doing this in the late 70's but you what? I love it anyway!! The Return of Bigfoot was also a great 2 part Bionic Crossover with both Steve and Jamie and Bigfoot was played by Ted Cassidy. Unfortunately, the last Bigfoot episode (also with Ted Cassidy) called Bigfoot V made in season five fell flat and was pathetic. Avoid that one. But this first Bigfoot 2 parter is high on the recommendation list.


I hadn't seen "The Six Million Dollar Man" for 30 years, and it was fun to watch this episode for awhile, hear the sound effects of Lee Majors doing his bionic stunts, etc., and letting my children have a good laugh at what passed for entertainment in my own teen years.

However, this initial fun turned quickly to boredom once the inane plot began to develop about 15-20 minutes into the first hour of this two-parter. We sat through it, hoping it would get better, but nothing doing.

How the IMDb fans rated this a 7.0 out of 10 is beyond comprehension to me, but obviously not everyone enjoys the same kinds of entertainment.

I was pretty fascinated with the TV series back in the day, but watching this revealed to me just how cheesy it all was -- not just the wooden dialogue and acting, but the sets and script-writing as well.


I'm a big fan of the complete series of six million dollar man; and this episode is the best of all I've seen. I hope If they gone a make a movie of the six million dollar man, they respect the story and the tradition of this character. I'm only have 3 years old when I see for first time this episode and let me tell you that this experience is still in my memory. the character of big foot it was so real, Andre was the perfect actor to be this character. I'm only can say that at the present days, I can not find another character as Steve Austin (Lee Majors)in all TV's series, and I think that in many years we can see another one like the big one SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN.


Maureen O'Hara gives a quiet, confident and masterful performance as a retired schoolteacher, Helen Parker. We gradually learn about Helen Parker's past as she become reacquainted with one of her former students, Todd Cope. Todd Cope, Todd Cope's family, and we discover the importance of not getting caught up with the details of life and to slow down to appreciate what life has to offer.


I was expecting a ho-hum story but instead I found myself pleasantly involved with the characters, especially Eric Stoltz, who wasn't a lawyer or a plumber, but a male nurse. This could have been very predictable but it wasn't, and I think that's why I enjoyed the story so much. It was great to see Maureen O'Hara, who I might add looks very pretty for her age. Overall this was a very touching movie.


Mira Nair, the talented director of this film keeps surprising us. She gets excellent acting from the different casts in all her movies. "Hysterical Blindness" is no exception. Ms. Nair working on the screen play by Laura Cahill, and based on Ms. Cahill's own stage play, takes us to a town in New Jersey, so close to Manhattan in geography, but far away in the way these people seem to be living in another planet.

Debby Miller blames her mother for whatever is wrong with her life. Her father left her when she was quite young. Her mother, Virginia, makes ends meet by working as a waitress in a local diner. Both daughter and mother have been cheated out of happiness because of the loss they have experienced. While Debby dwells on her unhappiness, Virginia seems to have adjusted quite well.

Debby is a woman that is desperate to find a man. Obviously, she is quite capable to give her best into any relationship. It's sad how she goes after the one man she should have avoided in the worst way. It will be too late before she realizes the mistake she has made.

Throughout the film, Debby and Beth, share their hopes and aspirations. While Beth is grounded, Debby is flighty, hoping for things she can't have. On the other hand, Virginia meets a nice man, Nick, at the diner. They begin a friendship that unfortunately is cut short by tragedy. All in all, the film final scenes tells us that Debby realizing her mistakes goes back to her roots and to her friendship with Beth.

The strength in the movie is the great performances Ms. Nair gets out of the four principals. Uma Thurman is good as the Debby. Gena Rowlands, as the mother, makes an appealing Virginia, who makes us care about her. Juliette Lewis, as Beth, is also endearing. Ben Gazzara makes a short, but effective contribution as Nick, the man who finds love with Virginia.

This is a film that shows Ms. Nair's talents perfectly.


For anyone who has ever been truly, painfully lonely and done really stupid things under the influence of alcohol just to gain a little affection and affirmation, this movie will be like looking in the mirror. I winced when Uma's character literally flung herself at a guy who is, like a recent book popular dating book says, is just not that into her. The pain on Uma's character's face is just too much to take sometimes. I've watched this film twice and even though the I knew what was going to happen, seeing it a second time was just as heart-wrenching and touching. Kudos to all the actors, especially Uma Thurman and Gena Rowlands. PLEASE see every Gena Rowlands movie ever made - you won't be disappointed. She is one of the finest actors of our time.


I enjoyed this movie because it was REAL. Hollywood too often sugarcoat characters and their experiences, almost to the point that it makes you want to puke because you know real life never turns out that peachy. This ending wasn't exactly a happy one, all the problems weren't solved and you're left to imagine what went on afterwards. Nobody fell madly in love and got married like some fairy tale... that was refreshing. Splendid job by the actors, I love Juliette Lewis, and she was her usual charming self.

My only complaint, is why was Deb so.... frustrating? I found myself asking, 'Why is she being so difficult? Why doesn't she open her eyes and see what's going on? Does she really think Rick would want anything to do with a girl he picked up from a bar and had a one night stand with?' And so forth. SHE'S the one putting HERSELF in these ridiculous and tragic situations. Halfway through the movie I just got so tired of her endless cynicism. Miss Thurman was terrific, don't get me wrong, but the character irritated me somewhat, maybe that was just me.

Other than that, I think this is one of the best HBO films so far. They really have a knack for bringing real life to the screen, I'm hardly ever disappointed. Quite a few women can probably relate to one of the characters or at least seen themselves, at one time, in their predicaments. I mean, we all want to find true love... but make sure you're looking in the right place! 7/10.


This film was AMAZING!!! Being as how UMA THURMAN is already my favorite actress, this movie just made me love her more. It's a great story. It lets us look at love from so many different angles. All the female characters in this film are strong an independent, but each is so lonesome, and yearnful for love, that they inevitably seek love in all the wrong places. This is a movie that will make you think about your life, and the way you search for happiness and contentment. There are ASTOUNDING performances by Uma Thurman (obviously,she won the golden globe she was so great) and also by Gena Rowlands and Jullite Lewis.I'll admit it, I laughed and cried during the course of this movie. You feel so bad for the characters when bad things happen. You connect with them all, and try to relate to them. It's a great feeling to go see a movie, and be able to leave a different person. Thats what happened to me after seeing this film! You all should check out this movie and appreciate all the love and heartbreak it brings to the screen!


Being single is always frustrating, but letting that unhappy feeling get the better of you would only make things worse. That's what's all about in this movie. The 80's is always something and this movie sets back in that decade. And I'll say, this movie was excellent. Uma Thurman, Juliet Lewis, and Gena Rowlands were astounding. Uma Thurman, is a heavy hitting actress from "Pulp Fiction" to The "Kill Bill" movies really played her part well as Debby. She goes to the doctor when she temporarily goes blind. It can be scary. At least she's trying to take it easy. Her friend Beth, a wild child had a daughter whose father didn't keep his end on the relationship. Debby's mother Virginia(Rowlands) is strong, yet her daughter's resentment to her new boyfriend lead to her own remorse when the boyfriend died of a heart attack. The resentment was caused when her father left the family. The movie has everything, laughs, cries, wonder, curiosity, and a sense of direction on showing on how important life should be. And it's not too late to catch the big one! A very good movie, and a major keeper in the video library.


An excellent and accurate portrayal of lower-middle class 20-something barflies in the 80s, desperate for affection and attention, and willing to do anything for it. Uma Thurman and Juliette Lewis are the quintessential trashy girls of the 80s. Uma Thurman plays "Deb", a self-centered secretary who doesn't want anyone to be happy unless she's happy, including her best friend "Beth" (also expertly played by Juliette Lewis) and her mother (Gena Rowlands). Tragically flawed with low self-esteem, she covers it up with fantasies of happily ever after, even fooling herself, while the more level-headed, but also flawed Beth tries to do her best to stay happy with her absent-fathered daughter and inject a little reality into Deb's world. If you were of age in rural or suburban 1980s, you must see this film.


I caught this movie on cable TV a year ago, slightly edited, and was hooked from the opening bar scene. The characters felt so real to me, it seemed like I was sitting at the bar, watching the various interactions of the people there. I kept waiting to see if Rick would turn out to be a total jerk, but it became clear that he was just a rather shallow, unemotional type guy ,who clearly was not interested in relationships and commitment. He never once said anything to lead poor, hapless Debbie on, with the possible exception of his vague, noncommittal response to her dinner invitation. Even at the end, when she was literally clinging to him in the bar, he didn't say anything mean or abusive, but told her, in a low key, not uncompassionate way, that she needed to go home and sober up. It wasn't what she wanted to hear, but it actually was the kindest thing he could have said to her, under the circumstances.

Gena Rowlands' performance as Debbie's mother was heartbreaking in its perfect blend of strength and fragility. Her reaction to Nicky's death, and her meeting with his son at the funeral were incredibly moving. Again, I felt the reality of the characters and their lives in a way one doesn't encounter often in movies.

Uma Thurman's performance was so dead on, that I actually felt embarrassed for her in her desperate, drunken scene in the bar. Debbie would be a pain to put up with, in real life, but her frequently obnoxious mannerisms and attitudes never outweighed the pity I felt for her, as someone who had been badly wounded at a young age, and had real issues as the result. It's a daring performance, in which she doesn't hold back on honestly depicting the painful vulnerability of her character. I found myself wishing at the end that she would find a nice guy who would really appreciate her, and that all three women would have happier lives in the future. There's something about this movie that gets hold of you and doesn't let go; maybe because a lot of us have felt like Debbie at one point or another in our lives.


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:

I knew I'd love Hysterical Blindness and recently had a chance to see it. I liked it even more then expected. A brilliant movie and a job well done from the whole cast.

Pretty much everyone knows the plot but....I will say watching this movie, I was struck with how much was gotten so right. I love character studies and love independent films because their often not afraid to take chances as are many, more mainstream movies. They are often more accurate As well.

Everyone in this movie exists-somewhere in this world. Movies that capture the humanness of everyday people and environments, deserve kudos because it is not often when that happens. Hysterical Blindness could function as a very long advertisement to someone about the negatives of the bar scene and the movie is almost emotionally brutal in the way it picks up the quiet weariness some of these people feel. The writing is just superb and I really wish This had been a big screen release and am sure a few Oscars would have been picked up along the way.

All the performers were outstanding. Uma Thurman was BETTER then in the kill bill movies (yes, it's true) and Gena Rowlands and Juliette Lewis were outstanding. Oh how I adored the gentle dreamer Nick! (played brilliantly by Ben Gazzara). Thurman's playing down of her looks still did not disguise the fact that she is a beautiful woman but that did not, for me, lessen the believability one bit. As many know, the fact that one is extremely Goodlooking does not mean they cannot experience emotional pain in relationships. I found not one false note in this movie and I found Hysterical Blindness to be just incredible.

This is probably one of the most honest movies about suburban single life I've ever seen and it actually makes the movie "Singles" look like a light Rom com. I'm always struck by movies that are like a little( or big) slice of life. In that regard, Hysterical Blindness is at the top of the heap. my rating is 9 of 10.


This adaptation of an off broadway play, about two friends living in New Jersey and looking for love in all the wrong places, features great acting by Juliet Lewis, Geena Rowlands, and Uma Thurman. Thurman, especially, is great and, alone, worth the price of admission (or rental). This is nother coup for HBO in producing meaningful indie films.


A played-down, but still gritty and mostly honest look at how women 'survive' our male oriented, female knee-bending society. Gena Rowlands is the light in this film as the matriarch figure to 3 girls. Her own, Deby (Thurman) and Deby's best friend, Beth (Lewis) and her daughter, Amber. Gena finds love late in life only to discover she waited too long for Nick (played tenderly by Ben Gazarra), nice guy, Deby can't stand. (Read jealous) Beth becomes attracted to and sort of involved with the bartender at the local (read dead) bar. Deby picks up reluctant Nick at same bar and invents a possible future with him to all her girlfriends, whose constant pressure of questions concerning their imminent "engagement" threatens Deby's sanity and self esteem. It seems her Dad left her and her Mom early on and took with him her budding confidence. As the girls struggle with Life issues they discover their greatest strength lay in their own closeness, no matter how vulnerable that also makes them to each other.


Uma Thurman is extraordinary as a club girl looking for a Mr. Right -- *any* Mr. Right (or even Mr. Okay For Now). She debases herself awkwardly and willingly in repeated pathetic attempts to get guys to like her, and they smell her desperation a mile away. She shyly volunteers that she gives good head, for instance, and her offer is accepted repeatedly, while between encounters she's got the stink of something best left outside -- and so she is. Her need for acceptance appears driven by a deeper need for respect, for the recognition that she is worthy of more than service as a convenient warm body. It's a heart wrenching performance, and one that I recognized to the core of me from my own club days, during the times of my life when I was so lonely that I couldn't even *fake* self-respect convincingly.

I was torn between wanting to shake her and wanting to hold her. Her role strikes a bullseye for anyone who has ever needed a kind word and received only derision.


This is a wonderful, well-acted, movie. In fact, it is quite a pleasant surprise. What I anticipated to be just another made-for-TV soap opera was a movie with a story about people whose lives seem ordinary but are actually special. The characters are likable and the action centers around a bar in New Jersey where the main characters, two women searching for relationships, go to meet men. This is a scenario that a lot of people can relate to, especially in a society where people are increasingly isolated and are alienated from the the community around them. For this movie is about the devastating effects of social isolation on people who don't want to be alone and after a lot of struggle finally realize that all they have are each other.


This film has some outstanding performances and is also realistic, amusing without being comical, and hard-edged without being hard-boiled. Add Gena Rowlands' performance, and it is certainly worth a view.

Anyone who has experienced dating outside of a large metro area will be familiar with the scene- the nights Beth and Debbie (Juliette Lewis and Uma Thurman) go out to Ollie's; hoping to meet someone new. As it is set in the 80's there are some great soundtracks, and there is also a parallel story with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara (as Nick) who develop a relationship in the unlikely environment of Bayonne, New Jersey.

The visuals in this film are quite effective. The stark reality of Thurman's loneliness; her loss of her father; her mother trying to make ends meet as a waitress. Sounds bleak, but it isn't. This is due to Laura Cahill's sensitive telling of this story; and Thurman's and Lewis' chemistry on screen. Both are trying to meet someone, to change the life they are living.

Another aspect of this film that I enjoyed was that, while there are humorous (and absurd) things that happen when we are single, this DOES show that, but not as so much ridiculous fluff. More as how real people are affected. For example Debbie dislikes her Mom's new boyfriend (Gazzara). But when she meets him one day at Ollie's she starts to discuss her problems. He smiles and says it's not the end of the world; she suddenly realizes he is right; she has wasted time on another guy who isn't worth it.

Juliette Lewis is also believable as Beth, a high-school dropout who has a young daughter, and no husband. She tries to be protective of Debbie (Thurman) when she sees her being hurt by yet another bad relationship. All in all , the performances were very good in this film. It is sad at times, but not depressing. And Rowlands is excellent. 9/10


I guess I'm a Mira Nair fan. I saw her Mississippi Masala (1992) and thought it was a great success. I believed her to be an ethnic director, dealing with Indian matters. I was wrong. The girls of Bayonne, NJ are authentic to their nails and accents. Uma Thurman gives it up, not the glamour girl we're used too, but a thirty something bar fly unable to land a man. It's not that she's unattractive, this is Uma we're talking about, but she is socially retarded because her daddy ran out on the family. Consequently, she hits all the wrong notes in interaction with the local Jersey Guys. The stress has caused symptoms, hysterical blindness, as her tone-deaf social antics at the local nightspot resemble the antics of immature high school girls. Her friend, beautifully played by Juliette Lewis is just a little bit smarter, but not much. They dream about being really hot when they were sixteen. Lewis' grade school daughter, April Autumn is crying out for a responsible mother. Meanwhile, Ben Gazarra, still suave after all these years, is romancing Uma's mom, Gina Rowlands. This is a slice of life movie. The pill freed women back in the 50's, but one wonders if it did them any good.


I thought this movie was very good -- thought provoking, certainly not an empty movie. Uma Thurman's performance is simply off the charts - is she great or what? This movie really had my attention from the get go.


Uma Thurman and Juliette Lewis don't even seem to be acting, they give such genuine performances. To turn a phrase of Stanislavsky's, "I truly BELIEVED their performances".

I had the pleasure of seeing Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara in 'Love Letters' in Beverly Hills some years ago. I loved how seamlessly they worked together. Their chemistry was alive again in HB, though I would have liked more on-screen time for the two of them. I was happy they were rewarded with Emmys.

All in all this was a great movie. I'm surprised it didn't win more awards, it certainly deserved more accolades. I give the movie a 9 out of 10, but I tend to be enthusiastic and passionate about films that I like.


For those looking for the ultimate '80's movie, look elsewhere. For those looking for an epic movie, this isn't it. For those looking for some sort of microcosm of New Jersey, (... some of you people boggle me) apparently this won't do it for ya.

-BUT-

If you're looking for a movie where plot plays accompaniment to emotional depth this movie is perfect for you. Uma Thurman and Juliette Lewis give their most true to life and demanding roles of their careers. I loved every second of this movie; every awkward pause, every song,(especially the use of the phil collins song in the bar.. i don't even like phil collins.. just thought it was perfect) and every line of dialogue.

BTW.. those of you claiming that this movie stinks and it's not an accurate representation of new jersey... should think about what they're saying. if you claim a movie stinks, than it can be nothing but a representation of new jersey.. c'mon, drive down the NJ turnpike with your windows down and take a good sniff.


I was looking through my satellite guide to find when this movie was on because I am a big fan of Uma Thurman and Juliette Lewis as well. At the end I was a little bit confused. Thurman and Lewis play these two best friends out of convenience or necessity, one or the other. They are typical bar trash in all reality. Being a bartender, I've seen women like this all of the time. They are trying not to pick up guys but get picked up. Uma desperately wants to have a man and goes home with one and is instantly crazy about him even though he treats her as what she was - a one night stand. This movie floats along somewhat aimlessly with no major issues really being resolved. What I liked about this is you as the viewer have to figure it out for yourself. In the end you get the feeling that she has decided to settle down and has a new found closeness with her mother, I think that's the direction it was going. It was definitely a movie you'd have to pay attention to and read between the lines. It seems like the plot is hazy and that you're suffering with Uma's character. Well that's life. The plot is sometimes very hazy and the point of a movie is that you suffer and rejoice with the characters. The acting was brilliant, Gena Rowlands - I neglected to mention - was great as Thurman's mother. The acting really does save this movie. Even though I defended it, I still feel the screenplay left something to be desired. My rating - 7/10.


"Hysterical Blindness", which has nothing to do with the psychogenic condition suggested by the title, is a gritty character study with Thurman at the vortex as a graspingly needy working class woman whose poor sense of self drives her like a derailed freight train into the arms of a man who uses her like a Bic. Supporting cast members Rowlands and Lewis portray characters who are also manless but with contrastingly better coping skills. An excellent slice-of-life flick set in backstreet-under-the-bridge-and-by-the-railroad-tracks Jersey, "HB" is a riveting watch for those into character driven dramas about working class people. (B+)


I just saw this movie debut this evening on HBO. While I felt that all the actors were superb in their performance I also felt that there should be more of a story-line. I also thought too much time was spent on trivial dialogue between Thurman and Lewis about hairspray, what to drink , where to sit in the bar and what not, but maybe that was the intention of the director....

I think the desperation that Thurman's character came across very well in her acting ... I did like the interaction between her and her mother and Gazarra but didn't quite buy the close relationship/best friend bond that was supposed to exist between Thurman and Lewis...

Overall it was pretty good and I give it a 7.


Great flick, mainly because of the acting. Uma Thurman, Gena Rowlands and Juliette Lewis were perfect in their roles, very well cast and so emotionally dead-on. That bar scene was murder, an emotional wasteland. I was only slightly disappointed with the direction and script. It seemed like things were a little too telegraphed and heavy-handed. When the two girls are walking on the railroad where the tracks meet they are "at a crossroads." Ugh, hit me again. Then, when someone is about to meet a terrible end, we see a long shot with a lot of weird light. Just a little too obvious.

But I digress too much on the downside. Overall, a fantastic movie, makes me miss the 80s and be glad they're over all at the same time.

9 out of 10


I was very impressed with this piece. It was well written, exceptional character development, well directed and very well acted. I believed every character. This is one's a winner and I will watch it again.


I rate this highly 'cos of the performances of Thurman and Lewis. They were absolutely outstanding. I take on board the comments about the dodgy accents, music, anachronistic details, but they don't matter to 99% of the people who watch. The characterisations were great! Even if they didn't leave you precisely where intended, they were consistent and you could buy into them.

I really like the comment here to the effect that the film would have some merit if the characters achieved even a hint of self-awareness by the end of the film. This is an important point, and I would agree whole-heartedly if the film had a different title. The title is all that's needed to give this film perspective, to place it specifically and allow it to be what it is without reference to the frame that gives it meaning.


Uma Thurman, Juliette Lewis, Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara all give wonderful performances. Unfortunately, a great performance of a boring character is still uninteresting. When the movie is a largely plot-less character study, dull characters are fatal.

Uma Thurman is particularly good as Debbie, a painfully neurotic, almost psychotic twenty-something girl. She's desperate for love, and stalks it in all the stupidest ways possible. She repeatedly throws herself at men, only to be disappointed. She's exactly the sort of barfly that you can find in every local bar.

Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara give amazing performances as an older waitress and a retiree in a budding romance. Unfortunately, they're secondary characters, and don't get enough screen time to properly develop.


I can't believe I actually sat through this movie! OK, the music was great, and Gena Rowlands was excellent... but that's it! It's unfortunate, because the subject matter had so much potential, but this was terrible! Juliette Lewis was... interesting - but some of her lines and their deliveries were like nails screeching on a chalkboard. Uma Thurman could have been excellent, but she wasn't given much to work with in terms of a script.

The other thing about this movie is that it at times is too pretentious for its own good symbolism that tries to work with the main plot but comes across as just too much of a bad art house effect (watch for red traffic lights and you'll see what I mean).

A laudable effort, but nothing can save this ship from sinking.


DEFINITELY CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!! The acting in this film is EVERYTHING. The story--hey, we've seen (read Every Female equals) blue collar Jersey chics slobber over (read Every Male equals) callous, insensitive, brutish, infantile, chauvinistic males before. But that's just the point. There are no greys in this movie. Characterizations are either black or white. Men are brutes--every single last one of them. Even the character that Ben Gazzara plays never once asks the Gena Rowland's character if she WANTS to move to Florida. He just falls in love with her and wants to move to buy a trailer in Jacksonville. And since every trailer in Jacksonville not only has to have push-outs and a separate stall shower but a wife, it seems as if this is only real reason Gazzara's character wants to form an attachment or have some kind of a relationship with Rowland's character.

Justin Chambers' character falls right in line with all the other males in the script. If it's a male in this movie, it's knuckles are dragging on the ground. Women are to be ignored, but when they push themselves on you, you give in but get them to do what you want them to do. In his case, perform fellatio. It's amazing, however, that he doesn't show up for the food Uma Thurman's character prepares for him a few nights thereafter. After all, what more is there in life than beer, pool, fellatio, and filet mignon (all of which are prepared or placed before you with very little effort). He doesn't show up, however. Obviously this brute has some smarts, knowing that this Jersey chic is really bonkers.

But women fare no better in this black or white world. Juliette Lewis has had a bad marriage and a kid from hell. But all she wants is to jump into bed with the next penis that walks down the street. She wants the bartender so bad at their local watering hole. But he seems to be no better than the other apes swinging through the streets of Bayonne (or whatever North Jersey city the story takes place in: locale is unimportant here--all cities in North Jersey are the same, all connected by the Pulaski Skyway).

Uma Thurman's character is pathetically miserable. But it's hard to imagine that a woman can be so desperate to let men walk so deliberately, continually and almost self-inflictingly all over her. She creates such a pitiful portrait, but then you sit back and say: HEY! Wake UP!! Which of course she can't.

Because the characters are written so black and white, it's hard to know what to do with this film. It's hard to like a film that makes male viewers with any sensibility angry at the portayals of ALL males as pigs, and makes female viewers with any sensibility angry at the portayals of ALL females as desperate harridans.

The only female who is portrayed with any ounce of sympathy (and I don't mean the viewer pities her) is Gena Rowlands character. She's a beaten individual, quite honestly past her prime, but realistic in her view of herself and the world. She is the only person who takes life cautiously. When Ben Gazzara's character asks her to move to Florida, while it's obvious she's interested, she tells him "I'll have to look up Jacksonville on the internet." Way to go!! Finally, an ounce of sense, an individual thinking with his or her head, and not simply with one's loins. For not only the men are guilty of loin-logic in this flick. Ben Gazzara's character seems too old to think that way. He's working on a comfortable retirement, and in need of a wife to complete the image, that's all. But everyone else is desperate to mate.

On a higher level, in any slice-of-life drama, there are bound to be liberties taken with portrayals and types of characters selected to tell the story. So the thing to do with this film, it seems, is to put everything in the background and watch the actors portray some really sad people in a very sad environment.


I looked forward to watching Hysterical Blindness, as the HBO promos showed some promise. It is the story of two 20 something New Jersey women coping with dead-end lives by hanging out at the local bar, Ollie's. The script did not tell enough of a story to keep me interested. I felt the story was very predictable, no surprise what happens after Debby and Rick sleep together.

The main characters were not sympathetic at all. I had to force myself to watch the entire movie. Debby (Uma Thurman) and Beth (Juliette Lewis) were selfish and self-pitying. We get glimpses of their back-stories to perhaps help the audience understand their behavior. But even then I could not bring myself to care what caused their immaturity.

Uma's character did not have enough of a character arc, and I was hoping Beth would but to no avail. Juliette Lewis gave a good performance, subtly desperate but trying to keep a good face as a single mom. Uma's was too over the top. I did not think her looks worked against her, she looked very 80's cheap Lycra bimbo. Her gestures and accent were not believable. The best scenes in the movie involved Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara, and I would have preferred a story where they were the lead characters.


Wajda's MAN OF MARBLE is one of the most compelling attacks on government corruption that I have ever seen. It is a "Citizen Kane"-styled story of a female film student who tries to trace the history of Birkut, a long-forgotten "hero" of the Polish Communist government.

She begins by viewing propaganda film that praises Birkut as a devout worker who slaves away at brick-laying for the officials. He has the appearance of a vigilant, Hercules-like strongman who breezes through the labor without breaking a sweat. Then she goes to interview the director, who was hired by the government. He tells her about the reality of making the film, such as how Birkut was given extra food and water (unlike the other bricklayers). Wajda uses these two conflicting scenes to deconstruct the false imagery that propaganda gives its viewers. He shows us how officials manipulate such situations to their own political good.

The student goes on to interview other subjects who describe the brutal reality of Birkut's off-camera existence. In one devastating scene, she meets his wife, who breaks down and tries to avoid being interviewed. As the truth becomes clearer and clearer, the government begins to intercede in the production of the student's film.

Wajda was a film-maker who was not afraid to criticize the harsh Polish government that eventually was defeated by individuals such as Lech Walesa. MAN OF MARBLE is a testament to those who had to live through the oppression of Communism, and also to those who are still living under its iron fist.


So many film students have wasted their time trying to study "Kane" as a character study and as a satire. But it wasn't really either of those things, but an experiment in depth for the camera and narrative structures. The frequent comparison between that film and this one makes a lot of sense superficially; the newsreel footage, the interviewees made up to look 20 years older.

But Agniezcka is making a film, rather than a piece for a newspaper: journalism vs. art, capitalism vs. socialism. Although the journalists in "Kane" said otherwise, they were never seeing "who he was" rather "what he was like" ie. his behaviour, how others perceived him etc. Here we have something broader, examining a man confronting society, confronting his friends, and confronting himself all at the same time. Newspaper journalism tells us what something is like. Good documentary strives to really define what or who something was.

This is a highly intelligent structure, moreso than his previous works and moreso even than "Kane." As a meditation on film-making, it moves gracefully from the shots captured by Agniezcka's cinematographer, and the shots of Wajda himself, forcing us to draw parallels.

It's a shame Wajda remains largely unknown. Perhaps the up-coming Criterion set of his "War Trilogy" will change that.

4 out of 5 - An excellent film


When I saw this film, I was very shocked at how subversive the content was. While it was filmed in Poland during the Soviet-dominated era, the film focused on a fictional character's rise and fall in local government. Mateusz Birkut is an ordinary Polish bricklayer working on a massive government project. A film maker decides to stage a propaganda stunt to see if a new record for speed bricklaying could be set. Birkut agrees to give it a try along with his crew. Not only did they meet their goal but they exceeded it--and it was all captured on film to be shown to the masses. Overnight, Birkut becomes a minor celebrity and he is given a nice job working for local government. And, for some reason, over the years his name is just about completely forgotten.

Now, over 20 years later, a young film maker has stumbled upon Birkut's name and some of the newsreel footage but she is really curious how he went from hero to nobody so quickly. She spends most of the film reviewing old film clips and tracking down those who knew Birkut to find out WHY. However, repeatedly she is told to mind her own business and lots of roadblocks are thrown in her path. Finally, after exhaustive work and putting herself out on a limb politically, she finds out how the repressive government worked during the Stalin years--taking a hero and eventually jailing him as a political prisoner and then erasing memories of his existence. Repeatedly, she is warned to let the matter drop, as even in the post-Stalin era it wasn't exactly a free country. How this very critical film ever got made it beyond me but it's wonderfully made and captivating.


I came to this film after having watched Wajda's "Ashes and Diamonds," which I consider to be one of the finest films I have seen. However, "Man of Marble" was just too quirky for me, leaving me a bit perplexed.

The story concerns a young film student, known here only as Agnieszka, who decides to produce a documentary on one Mateusz Birkut as her graduation project. Birkut was an idealistic bricklayer who rose to the status of post-WWII hero by way of displaying superior efficiency and strength. His innovation of how to use a small team to accomplish improved production came to be so well recognized that he would tour the country setting up such teams. The film time-slices from the 1970s, when Agnieszka is making her film, to previous times, all the way back to mock documentary footage of Birkut in the 1950s. The presentation is anything but flattering to the Communist Party and it is astounding the Wajda was able to get this made in a time when the Communists were still in power in Poland. The story must be autobiographical to some extent, since we see Agnieszka encountering political opposition to her digging too deeply into the past trying to reconstruct Birkut's life and figure out why he essentially dropped from the scene after having been so highly visible; there is also a famous film director in the movie whom we get to know well.

There are many scenes that had the quality of a dream, but yet seemed like they were supposed to be taken for real. For example, one scene has Burkit's friend Witek going into a small office of a party boss and, when Burkit enters the office some time later there is no sign of Witek. If this were to be taken as some sort of Kafkaesque event, then Burkit would have make no remark on the mysterious disappearance, but he express the surprise that any normal person would have. I did not know what to make of such scenes. Agnieszka's facial expressions and body movements are often quite odd, bordering on the bizarre, and they accentuated the feeling of unreality I had that became increasingly more pronounced as the movie progressed.

The collage of Agnieszka's interviews, mock documentary footage, scenes from Burkit's life, scenes from Agnieszka's own life, and an inappropriate musical score did not coalesce for me.


The usual comparison- and inspiration- is with Citizen Kane, but there are important differences. One is that the hero here really is a citizen- a comrade in his own eyes- and the other is the difference in the person trying to learn about him. The reporter in Citizen Kane is an experienced hack who is indifferent except to the front page; Agnieska is at the start of her possible career, making her graduation film, the one which will make her name and determine her future and looking for a story that matters in itself; indeed, Agnieska's story is as important to the film as Birkut's and in some ways her story reflects his. She works as determinedly as any Stakhanovite and the way she binds her helpers- the film crew, archivists, people who knew Birkut- to her in her task and to think it worth doing for themselves means that she creates a shock-force as real as and more effective than Birkut's display team of brickies. Again, the characters we meet who knew Birkut all have a relationship with Poland as well as Birkut and their own careers- building-worker to political prisoner to industrialist; chekist to strip-club manager; propaganda film-director to...film-director; gymnast to drunkard- reflect the changes as they- and communist Poland- age. There's hope- the old cameraman blasted into admiration and respect for Agnieska when she shows she'll do his job for him. Indeed, Agnieska is a wonderful character, her long limbs wrapped round her, carrying "everything I possess" round everywhere, smoking cigarettes avidly, demanding "wide screen, like an American movie"- you can see why the Party and her superiors want her to succeed and why they fear her. Not only that, but the film is fair to Communist Poland- we see Agnieska's home and realise that it is because of the opportunities given by communism that she can leave the boundaries imposed on her railway-worker father, just as Birkut only achieves fame as a worker in a supposedly workers' state. It is because both of them take rhetoric seriously that they are finally unsuccessful. After all, we never do know who sabotaged the bricks and burned Birkut's hands, and it doesn't really matter in a state where rhetoric is what counts.


'Man of marble' is usually seen as an bold, anti-communist movie which is strikingly accurate at the deep level of practices within communist countries. Indeed, trough a story of a student who tries to make a graduation film Wajda beautifully succeeds in describing at the same time the soft violence of the '70s in Poland and the totally different hardcore 'prison' violence of the Stalinist regime in the 50's. Hence, it is gradually revealed trough the eye of the camera the contrast between the heroic, raw atmosphere of the first communist years and the light perestroika of the present cinematographic time. Nonetheless, there is a common thread throughout the movie as the all-pervading party monopoly deeply affects everybody and no one has the option of an Utopian escape.

The no exit strategy is probably for me the main theme of the movie. The rebellious young girl who tries to see beneath the propaganda images is also on psychoanalytical trip to confront her family history.

There are two scenes which can more or less summaries the story: in the first one, we can see her right at the beginning in a rough quarrel with her Television supervisor, and we can consequently grasp the theme of the incessant conflict with the authority. However, if on the one level wecan see her rejecting the father figure, on the second level we can witness desire as the film maker is practically possessing the hero statue which she finds in a basement of a museum.

Well, basically the catch of the movie is the intertwine of the story with the girl on the way of her desire and the political level which makes this trip also a trip of a historical clearing up. And, in the strange development of we find that the "fake" hero is in fact an authentic one and that we did know the secret of the narrative - the "hero"(the father, the phallus) of the propaganda is the "true" hero, as he had to face real tough moral problems and he lived "the life in truth" . The heroine can develop at last real emotional attachment with the paternal image and she eventually can end her trip by accepting an ally and a friend in the final scene.


"Shadowzone" is a typical horror film from Full Moon Entertainment.In the underground laboratory a group of scientists are doing experiments with dreams.They accidentally kill one of the volunteers.David Beecroft is sent to investigate the death.When he arrives there,he finds out that the scientists have released a monster from a dream dimension.All of them are stuck under the ground while the monster kills them."Shadowzone" is a surprisingly well-done horror film loaded with nudity and graphic violence.The acting is decent and the characters are well-developed.The climax is disappointing,though.The film is still worth checking out,if you like bloody monster flicks.My rating:7 out of 10.


Ah, the 80s, when Full Moon/Empire/Whatever movies still had a budget and were actually watchable. This one does it's best to remind the viewer that he has seen this story countless times. However, "Shadowzone" is competently made and directed, the cast is o.k. and the special effects are EXCELLENT for what they must have cost. It delivers the gory goods, too (nice exploding head...). Monster movie fans will surely get a kick out of this...


The first time i ever saw this movie was probably in 1992 when this was still on the video shelves and as far as SciFi Horror goes, this is one of the very best there is. I will not go into the story line as you can read that in the Plot Summary..but i will say this, watch Shadowzone and you will find yourself in the realms of parallel universes, unknown creatures, demons from the inner mind and human fear. The characters are developed pretty well, Louise Fletcher (esp), David Beecroft and James Hong are giving good performances. I think there is a great deal of atmosphere as well as tension-building and in my opinion this is definitely J.S. Cardone his best work. See this movie! Especially if you are interested in a great SciFi Horror flick. I am giving Shadowzone a 9 out of ********** since this is a classic example of turning basic horror elements (in this case the storyline) into an effective, creepy, moody and atmospheric film. Get your hands on this gem, if you can find it!


Experiments in sleep have unleashed a monster in an underground government laboratory. A good B-movie cast (Louise Fletcher, Shawn Weatherly, James Hong) and great special effects (for what they must have cost) allow the suspense that is built to sustain til the finish. Sci-fi & horror fans should not be disappointed. Fletcher is first-rate.


Stalwart Captain Hickock (a solid and engaging performance by David Beecroft) is sent to investigate the mysterious death of a member of a dream research project that's conducting experiments in a vast and isolated subterranean lab. Head scientist Dr. Van Fleet (a brief, but cool appearance by the always terrific James Hong) accidentally brings into our world a powerful deadly being with the scary ability to fatally use our worst fears against us. Writer/director J.S. Cardone, who also gave us the terrifically trashy "The Forsaken" and the pleasingly eerie "Wicked Little Things," maintains a snappy pace throughout, stages the genuinely startling shock scenes with considerable harrowing aplomb, and does a deft job of effectively creating a clammy, creepy and downright unsettling nightmarish claustrophobic atmosphere. The strong cast qualifies as another major asset: Louise Fletcher as the mad Dr. Erhardt, Shawn Weatherly as the fetching Dr. Kidwell, Frederick Flynn as hearty computer technician Tommy Shivers, Lu Leonard as gruff cook Ms. Cutter, and Miguel A. Nunez Jr. as abjectly craven, spineless, sniveling janitor Wiley. Karen Grossman's dark, fluid, moody cinematography, Richard Band's supremely shuddery'n'spooky score, and Mark Shostrom's good'n'gruesome make-up f/x are all likewise on the money excellent and impressive. The gory murder set pieces hit the splattery spot with a perfectly grisly bull's eye. As a nice extra bonus, the lovely Maureen Flaherty as a sleeping psychic spends all of her screen time completely in the buff. A really nifty and unjustly neglected little low-budget sci-fi/horror winner.