The visuals, the characters, the mood and music all add up to a superlative entertaining experience. The photography and other technical elements without the cacophony that gets into all Bollywood movies makes this a cool experience. Very modern in technique and captures drama of royal living of kings of Rajasthan without the gimmickry of palace on wheels or the loud noise of festival of India. A must have DVD for all Hindi film buffs. All characters have been given equal opportunity to show their talents. Good luck to Eklavya! All actors have given performance that is expected from them. It is well balanced and does not have unnecessary cosmetic scenes that seem to be a staple of Hindi films. Perhaps that is the reason why it did not do so well at the box office. It must not be an accident that Amitabh Bacchan gets to play the lead role. It will be a befitting award for the great actor now approaching the sunset of his acting years.


Best film this year. Indian Cinema at its best.If its said a "lost film by David Lean"-It deserves it. Vidhu Vinod Chopra-Two Thumbs up-This man is our hope.

No words to describe this film. A modern day masterpiece. Vidhu Vinod Chopra's best. Breathtaking performances from Big B, Saif, Boman, Jackie, Sanjay, Vidya etc. Superb music and score and wonderful cinematography and locales not to forget the awe inspiring visual effects. In the years to come will be remembered as a CLASSIC. This is a poem on celluloid. Shakespeare nestling in the sands of Rajathan. This piece of work would have made Shakespeare smile broadly

A must watch for Cinema Lovers. EKlavya-a Royal TREAT!


Can a perfect recipe end in a tasteless dish? Yes. Vidhu Vinod Chopra had the perfect raw material- India's finest actors, a brilliant cinematographer, best technical equipment. Above all, with the backdrop of a modern royal family, he had an opportunity to bake a gripping drama of emotions, betrayal, and character. Yet, 'Eklavya' emerged as the final product..

Chopra's only point is whether eklavya was wrong in not challenging the tradition (dharma). It is a thought-provoking subject, but chopra uses such a deuced round-the-corner approach to get to it. The entire movie is senselessly maneuvered to reach a point in the end where such a question could be asked. A good movie would have tried to explore this conflict between tradition and conscience throughout such that the conflict serves as a core to the movie. But, Eklavya manufactures irrelevant events before this question is placed to be answered in one swift action (stunt, if you like).

Ironically, a character-based movie like 'Eklavya' pivots on underdeveloped characters. The director suddenly introduces the character and expects us to understand their positions and allegiances. A little more of character-delving would have added strength to the film. Most characters are either explicitly bad or explicitly blind (pun unintended). Eklavaya's (Amitabh)conflict between duty and parenthood is never clearly represented. NOt until the very end, which is perhaps the only meaningful part of the movie. Eklavaya character, in absence of any development, emerges as puerile- an immature guard who acts only on instinct and remains oblivious to the truth before it is thrown at his face.. Saif remains wooden and leaves the audiences to wake up in between and decide what his character is up to. The ladies are treated as fillers when an over-intense drama has to be temporarily paused.

In the end, You feel nothing for the characters. you want to cry for eklavya, but you don't know him enough. You want to hate Jackie Shroff and his son, but director doesn't inspire you to. You don't know what to feel for saif, since more time is spent in showing his romance than his place in the drama.

The problem is that since there is very little to happen in the movie, it drags at leisurely pace giving scenes which make bear no relevance on the ultimate message. Bad actors could have made this movie intolerable, but bollywood's finest rescue it. Amitabh and saif do full justice to the inexplicable characters given to them. Others hold their own, except the usually brilliant Bomaan Irani, whose eccentric portrayal of the king is annoying.

Sadly, Bollywood is infested so much with mediocrity that anything different is hailed as a masterpiece. Eklavya is different, but it is pointless. it completely squanders the head-start given by brilliant backdrops and imaginative camera work. Incidentally, for this technical brilliance only, it deserves the 2 stars given to it.


The movie seems to be good but only from the outside.The story has definitely been weaved around amithabh bhachan.The comparison with the character ekalavya of the Mahabharata is too fanciful.I could not find any resemblance with the real character's touchy position. The movie's settings could have carried it off as historical movie but there was a modern tinge to it for no apparent reason.The performance of the characters was up to the mark. The royal guard is given so much importance and it is strange to observe that there are no other servants in the movie. Overall there is a lot of confusion as to whose dharma is right and what is dharma and what generates it.


The movie is mediocre at best. Definitely not worth the hype. The movie is plagued by a weak storyline and editing.Old Bollywood plot being used for past 60 years used for this movie. The movie show signs of weak editing. The movie has been stretched around Amitabh and lacks character development of other actors in the movie. One can understand he is a main selling point, but actors like Sanjay, Jackie suffer. Hardly any time is devoted to their character development. Information has been repeated in several scenes. For a short running movie this is definitely a sign of weakness. I suppose the pre-production was not well thought.Information is repeated several times. Scenes are pro-longed unnecessarily. This makes the movie boring between the middle run. I would say the movie is technically and directorial weak. Seems like a dry soap opera at best.


Eklavya The Director  Vidhu Vinod Chopra - reputed with 2 decades of successful cinema under his belt. The star cast  outstanding  Amitabh Bachchan, Sanjay Dutt, Jackie Shroff, Saif Ali Khan, Jimmy Shergill, Boman Irani, Sharmila Tagore, Vidhya Balan, Raima Sen and Parikshit Sahani. The concept  brewing since more than 25 years; the work on the story, screenplay and script  painstaking; the details looked into the production  perfect! The story of Eklavya revolves around the Royal guard  Eklavya, played by Amitabh  of the palace in Devgarh, Rajasthan in post independence era, who's secret of fathering the twins (Saif and Raima) of the queen (Sharmila Tagore) is disclosed on the death of the queen. With this the story unfolds and Amitabh starts performing his duty as a Royal Guard with the murder of the king (Booman Irani) only to know that the murderer is none other than his son  the heir of the kingdom  Saif Ali Khan. Does he kill Saif to perform his Dharma is the question poised in the end. Sanjay Dutt plays the village lower caste cop, Jackie and Jimmy plays the villainous part; Parikshit the Royal driver and Vidhya his daughter.

The story is surely interesting, and all actors have performed their part very well and with all the resources it had  it was a sure formula for success!? But a big "NO" is the answer. The movie fails to connect and I felt as if I am viewing a sober re-make of 70-80's movie "Raj Tilak". This is a movie for all students studying Script writing and Director (in that order). It perfectly shows "What one should avoid" when writing a script and directing a movie. I am 100% sure that each and every scene and detail is well crafted out in the script  word by word, image by image, page by page, and that is reflected on the screen.

But the whole approach is immature  coming from a veteran director. The characterization is poor, each scene is like a stand alone scene of enacted on stage, each single scene is stretched to unbearable limit of irritation, the music on the over-stretched scene is jarring, the sync sound is badly recorded, each dialogue is a pick-up from 60-70s pot boiler, and even with range of emotions given to the characters, all actors are under-utilized and wasted.

A good movie on paper does not necessary result in a good movie on screen  is the big, loud and clear message one gets after seeing this crap.

Only saving grace of this movie is the cinematography.

Saif Ali Khan's beard reminded me of Rajesh Khanna movies where his hair used to grow long and short within a span of the same scene. It was strange that the palace did not have electricity, but Saif came in a latest helicopter wearing Swatch watch, and traveling by Scorpio and the funny part was when Sanjay Dutt in the last scene mentions about DVD player. Wasn't the impression given to us that the movie was based soon after independence  when India became a Democracy? I think Vidhu Vinod Chopra  got messed up in the historic hangover of timing! Just a trivia  On seeing a long queue waiting for the movie  I told an Indian "Please save yours Euro 10 per ticket  the movie is BAD!" He replied me  "Amitabh is there, so how can the movie be bad? Your outlook is different!" Really? CNN- IBN gave 2 stars out of 5. I am giving it 2.5 stars  but out of 10.

(2.5 Stars out of 10)


I saw this film several years ago on television here in France and thought it was great. It was so eerie and atmospheric. Jean Simmons was lovely and fetching as young Caroline whose evil Uncle Silas, played superbly by Derrick DeMarney and his unscrupulous cohort Madame Rougierre try to do away with her in a gloomy mansion along with the aid of Silas's son Dudley (Katina Paxinou is brilliant as Madame). Unfortunately, I didn't have a VCR back then and so I couldn't record it. Now that I have gotten a video recorder, the only place that I've found it to be available is over in the States. They only carry the American released version from the early 1950's when Jean Simmons really caught on over there. The films title was changed to "The Inheritance" and a scene where Uncle Silas has Dudley propose marriage to Caroline had been cut by the censures (incest was taboo in American cinema back then). Uncle Silas then forces Dudley to leave the house only to sneak him back later in the wee hours of the morning. In the American print we are not sure who that someone is (or why someone is being sneaked back into the house). It would seem confusing if you had never see the uncut British original. Lastly, in the British version Uncle Silas overdoses and dies. For some strange reason, in the American version he kills himself with a self inflicted gun shot wound. If you can get the British one, do. If not, the American release copy is a worthy second. **** out of **** stars. P.S. It's also a great book ("Uncle Silas" by J.S.LeFanu) and it's back in print!


Well, kinda lost for words... if you are a true horse lover (or maybe own horses) get this movie. If you despise horses: leave it on the shelve. But this film has everything: the love of a young girl for a broken down horse is so intense, you'll be in no time right in the middle of this movie. And the finale is so.... wait, I don't spoil it. You gotta see it to believe it! 10 out of 10. (or maybe even higher!)

I had seen this movie in the cinemas and I just had to see this one, but I could not find it. They only had the (terribly dubbed!) dutch version. I browsed every store and finally: at last I found the movie, included was a cdrom with some neat demos but I only care for this magnificent movie.

And o yes: try to run this movie in Dolby Surround: you won't believe you ears!


Saw this movie in November 2008 for the first time. Makes my eyes water and makes me feel good, real good every time. Contrary to what some folks claim, I didn't know what was going to happen from one moment to the next and there is surprise and suspense throughout. Loved the music and the dialogue.

This movie doesn't rely on foul language, sex, violence or props like constantly ringing telephones. It's just a decent, well made, beautiful movie that reaches for goodness and delivers.

When I'm sad or down I watch Dreamer because it never fails to make me feel good. But if you're out of touch with your feelings, hard hearted or cynical, you'll be disappointed. Thank you John Gatins for winning the "Triple Crown" with "Dreamer", my new favorite film.

"Rags to Riches" the first filly in 100 years to win the "Belmont Stakes" in 2007 is pregnant by "Giants Causeway" the real life colt of "Mariah's Storm" the horse who is the inspiration for "Dreamer".


Finally, a movie with socially important messages. Yes, it is devoid of violence and vulgarity. Really beautiful settings and magnificent animals. This leaves viewers with a sense of hope and promise. Predictable? yes but so well crafted. The acting was very good and believable. Comning from a family with a small farm, and having a father that too put his hope and faith in race horses, I really connected. Famileis will find many lessons and can use them to make their own lives happier and more complete. I would recommend this to anyone wanting clean entertainment and good feelings. I believe that life can really be this way.


Dreamer isn't a masterpiece of film making, to start with, the script could have had a final brush up, so as too avoid some stereotyped lines, specially between father and son, but if you are tired of too much reality, too much politics, too much Iraq, too much Bush, too much cynicism, too, too much violence on the big screen and TV, give this movie a chance. It will surely warm up your soul and fill your heart with joy.

Dakota Flemming is, as usual, superb and the mare Soñador (why should a mare get a masculine name, I really don't know, since the feminine for dreamer in Spanish is Soñadora) really lets you wishing you had enough space in your apartment to have one of your own...


First of all I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Each time I've watched it has brought tears to my eyes. I have a lot of experience with thoroughbred horses and could relate to things that they were experiencing. It says that it's based on a true story and in the credits it mentions a trainers name that it's been dedicated to. I was wondering if anyone has more information on the real people that the movie was based on? And the only other thing that I have is that I was checking the goofs that were noticed by people. I'm an expert rider and have ridden races and I can tell you there's a handful of goofs in the race at the end of the movie. Any response would be appreciated. I've been to Keenland, worked there and would like to know more about the people that the story was about. Thanks,

John


The initial commenter wondered if Janet Leigh was dubbed in this film since he couldn't remember her singing in any of her other pictures. Well, she did sing in other films, most notably in "Bye Bye Birdie", and "My Sister Eileen", and while she was not known as an accomplished singer or dancer, she managed to give fairly good performances in both films and to demonstrate a competent ability in numerous guest appearances on variety television programs of the '50's and the '60's. I hope this will help to answer your questions. You might also look at her work in "Rogue Cop", where she plays a singer, and "Walking my Baby Back Home", a musical she made with Donald O'Connor, as well as "Fearless Fagan" where again, she is a singer/entertainer. She speaks at length about her musical experiences in her autobiography, "There really was a Hollywood", and gives a great accounting of her early career.


I am, I repeat, UTTERLY fascinated with the puzzle which is the premise with this new SCI-FI series. It appears that SCI-FI Channel is finally listening to us and providing real Science Fiction instead of just empty space adventures and endless streams of mindless exercises in bad horror.

The central protagonist, Joe Miller, who is excellently played by Peter Krause, introduces a deftly played brave-smart-everyman quality to this thriller which brings us quickly into the story.

Kevin Pollak shows his true colors early as a fine actor playing the cool-mob-type bad guy.

Dennis Christopher brings a brilliant, oddball weirdness to his role as the volatile, confused dreamer, Dr. Ruber.

But everyone and everything is not what they/it seem(s). And I won't spoil any of the plot line for readers.

Suffice it to say, this is a gem in the making. If all possibilities are to be developed as I think they should be, this is going to be one to remember. Facts are not revealed all at once as in the end of an Agatha Christie mystery. You are not given great big chunks of them but: piecemeal and as far as I can tell this early - not without their own internal mysteries.

You have to only guess what is coming next, and when it comes, something else is brought into the fold which skews or distorts what you first believed.

So far the sophisticated viewer's collective intelligence has not been insulted or compromised.

This is very good writing. It does not rely on special effects for the mystery. The mystery is in the story, the way it should be.

Let's keep it this way! I am hooked. I hope it lasts....as a series!

Bravo SCI-FI!


I am thoroughly enthralled by what this show has to offer. I had the benefit of catching a repeat of the first few episodes back to back, and I am hooked beyond belief.

What stuns me is that everything seems to have a purpose behind it. At first, it appears to be an adventure that is random for the sake of being random. However, as the show unravels, there is a strange sense of mystery that would make Sir Arthur Conan Doyle proud. Shows like Lost have failed to grab my attention simply because I felt as if the writers were trying to make a 5-show plot thread last for fifty.

To be honest, I don't believe I've been this hooked on a show since Firefly. The main character could have easily been played by Nathan Fillion to the same effect of character. I hesitate to make any more comparisons; I'd hate for people to think this show is a hybrid of this or that. Something about it makes it completely unique.

I'm looking forward to where this show goes. I actually believe that history will remember this show as a benchmark for things to come.


What a mini-series!!! I absolutely loved this show!!! It left me wanting more ie, a series. I love the series Lost and watched Taken three times. So, I'm a fan of Sci-Fi. This captured my attention from the minute they showed the teaser. The story line was absolutely fascinating. And I thought the acting was excellent. I too enjoyed Peter Kraus in Six Feet Under; he's a very talented actor and I feel he will go very far.

If the writers and producers are reading these postings, Please, please bring this back as a series!!!! I loved it and would watch it faithfully! Thank you for bringing such an interesting show to us.


This mini-series is quite original and I found it very entertaining. The idea is pretty wild and far fetched but they make a lot out of it. As with so many mini series the first two episodes are better than the 'conclusion' which really only sets possible future episodes up. That being said, this is the best thing I saw on TV this year. The lost room reminds me of 'Dark City' with the surreal reality that it creates. I also liked the fact that ordinary items, or 'objects' are used as props to advance the story in a very cheap yet efficient way.

The production value is good and the atmosphere created is very convincing. The acting is great for a TV production and I wouldn't mind if 'The Lost Room' would be picked up for a full season.


Though I like fantasy and SF, I have to admit to being fondest of rule-based fantasy, like that of Tim Powers -- as a reader or viewer, you have an idea of what's possible and impossible, despite the supernatural elements of the story. Fantasy without rules is far less satisfactory, since characters in those stories can do whatever the writer arbitrarily decides they can do (or can't), and as a result, the writing is lazier.

"The Lost Room" is all about rules and the characters who find creative ways to abuse them. (Tim Powers fans would like it, I'm sure.) The writers have come up with cool supernatural powers for a host of innocuous looking objects (combs, pens, cards, bus tickets, watches, a key, etc.) Each object has a power and rules to govern them. Many of the powers don't seem that nifty, until you see how creatively they are used. And, along those lines, virtually every scene contains a fun, "Hey, that's a good idea!" move, and they tend to come at you faster than you can anticipate them if you aren't taping the show and hitting pause.

What's best about this is that the writers stick with it all the way. Many of these shows go David Lynch/Twin Peaks on us, setting us up with the promise of great stuff to come, and then disappointing us in a big way later. (Dean Koontz novels always seem to fall apart in this way, at least for me.) "The Lost Room" keeps up its promises all the way to the very end, which, like the rest of the miniseries, is clever and interesting and makes perfect sense in hindsight, given the rules.

I honestly can't think of the last time I saw a miniseries or movie of this ilk that pulled off its ending this well. It's a darned good miniseries, and I sincerely hope it becomes a full-blown series, as apparently is being considered.


I decided to watch this since the premise seemed fairly original. I was totally blown away! This show should be made into a series. Luckily they left the end open enough that we might actually see that in the future. With shows about superheroes becoming more and more common it is nice to see a storyline that allows those powers (useful and not so useful) able to transfer from one person to another. Excellent casting and set design. Kevin Pollak shines as an object collector obsessed to the point that he will sacrifice the world to get what he wants. Julianna Margulies is also excellent. It is nice to see her on something since ER. I was never quite sure if I should trust her completely or not since the objects seem to prove that power corrupts even when you have what you think are the best interests at heart. A must own on DVD when it finally comes out.


I have seen two of the three episodes and I have to tell you that this miniseries has me watching every second in awe and wonder. Two hours speed by and I'm watching the encore to make sure I didn't miss anything. I thought Miss Fannings performance was a little weak; but that may only be because her sister is just so talented. The other characters rock however; well written and acted. You care about what happens to them; one way or the other...

It is rare for a movie to be written that I can't guess what the writers are thinking, but this one keeps the mystery surrounding it. The last movie to do this for me was "Identity" with John Cusack. In fact, there are a few similarities, but they are not intentional. If you enjoyed one, however, you will thoroughly enjoy the other.

Great stuff so far. If you missed it the first time; don't pass it by a second. It is worth the watch!


The idea is old, some mystical event has happened in the past and some one (Hulk,Spidy,Deardevil) or a group (Fantstic 4) gets superpowers. But this series is a little different. Not people get powerd up, ordinary things do like a comb, a key, or a glas eye. Some with greate power, like stopping time some with less like only cooking raw eggs.

I think this is a great series which you wouldn't regret to watch, if you like that kind of series. i give it a 10 because it never bored me and was always thrilling. Some of you may think you cant give a 10 but you some people also gave a Oscar to Cher because for a short moment she was a good actress. and for this today i give this series a ten because in this moment i cant think of a better series in this genre.


Woof...just saw The Lost Room on Sci Fi. I wasn't expected much but boy was I surprised! Great miniseries and I'm hoping its one of those stealth pilots that might lead to a miniseries.

If you've read the 2 sentence blurb about the show (everyday objects, fantastics powers!) don't think you've got it. There are complexities underneath the surface of this show and it was very well done. The lead, Peter Krauss, used to be the lead on Six Feet Under. I expected higher profile roles for him after SFU died, and when I saw he signed on for Lost Room, I was disappointed. It sounded boring.

It isn't. Its a wild ride and I promise three things. You'll believe that Kevin Pollack can play menacing exceedingly well and Dennis Christopher isn't as cool as you remember him being back in Breaking Away about 100 years ago.

The last thing I can promise is that you will dig the show. Its supposedly coming on again in Jan 2007. If you haven't seen it, see it and tell your friends. This is one we want to get behind.

Scifi is starting to show up more and more often on my ReplayTV list. Being a huge science fiction fanboy geek, that's probably the way it always ought to have been but for years the channel was showing reruns of The Hulk and and old bad scifi TV. Lately, with BSG, Stargates (all flavors), hopefully soon for Painkiller Jane and Dresden Files, its finally coming into its own. I expect that in 2007, I may be watching it as much as I do HBO and Showtime and I pay for those! Now, if I could just get Scifi to stop showing stuff like Mansquito and the like, I'll be one happy damned camper.


I love what i have watched so far. The first hour of it was kinda not interesting for me. But as soon as it started to pick up and i saw Julianna i loved it. The acting is great from Julianna and Peter. The others are good. This mini series is very different from what i have watched. It keeps you hooked especially if you have never heard of these things. SciFi has finally showed something that doesn't suck. It would be great if this turned in to an actual show. It doesn't just throw a bunch of information your way. All three parts are worth watching. This was a great mini series compared to the other crap thats on TV these days. It would be great if they release this on DVD or in some other way. This is definitely worth watching.


I don't want to spoil the plot, but we find out very early that the plot involves "objects" and the objects are very much non-breakable. There are other aspects of the objects, including vaults, being sought, and consequences for using them. As I viewed the series, what kept coming to mind was the "cursed objects" of the TV series "Friday the 13th".

That being said, NBC & Sci Fi may have another winner on their hands. Just like Battlestar Galactica. Most of the shows, which indicate Sci Fi original are really terminated series being re-run. It is nice to see real Sci Fi shows being written from scratch and moving Sci Fi channel to a real channel and not a re-run channel.

I am eagerly waiting to see how the series will spin off considering the events of the last 5 minutes of the show.


Finally!! SciFi has actually produced something that is worthy of its name. The Lost World is a gorgeously produced, beautifully directed and wonderfully acted production. It even is adorned with a rare great music score by Robert Kral.

The mini was spellbinding, the plot kept you wanting to see more, and on top of it all, it was intelligent.

I'd be giving unsparing kudos to SciFi if not for one thing: why did they not promote it? I remember when the soporific Taken was put on how it was all but impossible to know when the show was on, or even the boring Triangle. Boy did I know about that show. And of course, let's not forget the extra-super-hyped but mind-numbingly bad Battlestar Galactica. Millions seemingly spent to promote it.

Yet, nary an ad for The Lost Room.

Why? Is SciFi afraid of shedding its image as a low-quality channel? In any case, it's great that they finally put money towards something worthwhile. let's hope they do it again.


I watch a lot of the SciFi "Original" movies. They are often really, really awful, and good for nothing but a laugh.

This miniseries, however, was excellent. The characters are well-written, well-cast and well-performed; there aren't gaping plot holes or any cheap, tacky special effects.

The main character, Joe, vaguely reminded me of Jack Carter, the main character from Eureka, another SciFi show. The two show aren't really anything alike; Eureka is more comedic. Both characters were separated from their wives and raising their own children.

And, the plot. It has this quality, where it reminds of of all kinds of different things that I can't quite place, yet is completely fresh and original. The characters aren't stereotypical, but there are a couple that fall comfortably into nice little categories. The whole thing has just a tiny hint of open-endedness to it, which is good, but still offers good explanations for the important things, which is great.

I highly recommend watching this if it comes on again, though make sure you start with Part One! A side note: Another reviewer mentioned disliking Elle Fanning in comparison with her sister (Dakota,) but I think I much prefer the younger incarnation presented here. She isn't as dramatic as her ubiquitous sister, but acts how I would expect an eight- or nine-year-old girl to act. It's a fresh change.


The SciFi channel has knocked another one out of the park! First "Battlestar Gallactica" and now "The Lost Room." They will have more hits on their lineup than Fox for sure.

This is an incredibly engaging drama and fascinating mystery. The characters are vivid without being "over the top." The actors have been given great material and they make the most of it.

Having watched all six hours of the mini-series, it is hard to find fault with any aspect. The dialogue is smart without being gimmicky. When dialogue isn't necessary the writers don't feel obligated to give us "senseless chatter" and the camera isn't afraid to hold the actors' facial expressions which tell us volumes.

The plot is very involved but its artfully divulged so we don't get overwhelmed or lost in the complexity. There are lots of "nooks & crannies"  some more relevant to the big picture than other, but all delicious in their own right.

The central character, Joe Miller (Peter Krause), is easy to identify with. Much like Frodo in "The Lord of the Rings" he finds himself an unwilling participant in a plot much larger than himself. This plot has been playing out for many years before his involvement and has a "culture" of its own. This culture is as interesting to learn about as the plot it surrounds.

Be prepared to be "sucked in." If this series were a book, you wouldn't be able to put it down.


This is a creative and imaginative story line. So far, there is also the absence of the droll, overused idea that aliens planted things and are now watching us like some sort of big lab experiment. As the story unfolds, lets hope that nothing pops out of anyones stomach. Its actually interesting that the writers are giving the credit for these items to God.

While the story line is an attention grabber, the acting is just so-so. The lead character does a good job, but most others seem stiff and over-rehearsed. And, some scenes are just a little too hard to digest, pulling the viewer back into reality -- like how many times can one fall out of the sky onto hard pavement and survive? There is also an element of familiarity between the little girl and Dakota Fanning, who has been very successful in pulling off the big-eyed, innocent parts.

All in all, this show is worth watching.


This mini series was awesome! Kudos to the writer/writers! I really liked it, but I only saw the first & second nights. I desperately need to see the final episode. Please air it again! Is there any plans to sell it on DVD or is it available online? If it was on Pay-per-view, I would order it!

Does he find all the objects? Does bad follow the people the items come in contact with?

Are there any similar series/shows coming up in the future? I miss the series like Sliders, Twilight Zone...There can never be enough Sci-Fi shows! I want more!


Before I go into the positive, I would like to point out the only drawback this "mini series" had in my opinion. And that is the fact that it wasn't made like a mini series. This was made like a TV show with a typical ending begging for the next season. Problem is mini series should be final and should have an actual satisfying ending, which this did not. The loose ends are not tied up in the way you would expect, on the contrary more and bigger questions arise.

Now on to the better, this mini series deals with some of the most fascinating aspects of science fiction. Without giving anything away I will just say that if you were intrigued by the ideas in such movies as Donny Darko, Contact, 2001 Space Oddysey (or the 2001/2010/3000 books) then you will enjoy this show.

Without being too extravagant there are enough special effects to make it look believable enough yet at the same time nothing is too out there. It all just seems so plausible. Acting is fine too. Having watched all of the episodes back to back to back it was just like watching one long movie. For a movie it progressed a little slowly, but once you get into the story you won't notice that at all.


I was surprised when I checked the credits of this miniseries to see that it had not been based on a book. It feels like something based on a book, because it has such a complete and detailed mythology and a feeling of back story that is rare in the work of screenwriters. The Lost Room has created a very complete world for its characters and for its central premise.

It also, like a movie based on a book, feels like you can only get the full story by reading the book. One is left with a lot unknown. For the most part this is fine, but I don't care for the fact that at the end you really don't understand .... well .... anything. Although I'll admit that even though I was worried that this would be the case, it didn't bother me all that much, because the story had good forward propulsion and a resolution that was emotionally satisfying although not intellectually so.

Since this isn't from a book, my guess would be they're considering this for a TV series, both because some threads seem to have been left loose on purpose and because it does feel like there's more you could mine out of the material. I hope I'm right about that, I would like to see more. But if it is a series, they'd better come up with some answers.


This is arguably the best TV program I may have ever seen (and like many Americans born in the 70s and raised in the 80s and 90s I've seen more TV, I swear to God, than virtually anyone alive...I kid you not). Ironic too that Peter Krause should be a part of it, given that he was the featured character in what is also widely considered to be the greatest drama to ever air (Six Feet Under on HBO). Do yourself a favor and immerse your mind in this 3-part miniseries (each part 2hrs long) and you'll never, ever regret it. The best 6hrs of television you can spend, short of those amazing new fetal camera shows from National Geographic (the dog, the dolphin and the elephant, also great shows that aired last week alongside The Lost Room from Sci-Fi). This competes with "V" from the mid-80s for most captivating miniseries ever.


When I saw the previews for this program I thought it was going to be stupid. Boy was I wrong.... I like sci-fi, but this was so brilliantly written I think someone who wasn't into sci-fi would've enjoyed it. For as long as the series lasted, it kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. The characters were well developed and added substance to the story.The only think I can say negative about this series is that it left a lot of questions unanswered (or maybe I just didn't pay closed enough attention, if someone has the answers to the following questions please send me a text) 1. What happened in the room specifically??? 2. The guy who became the profit and the black lady who was after him... that story line just stopped abruptly 3. Where was the girl???


We all loved the first night of the 3-day Mini series the lost room. It was an excellent clue like game and it was fun for our whole family to watch together and play together and try to find and write down the many clues through out the show. We can't wait for the next two shows. The show has suspense, comedy, Drama, and lots of thrills. It is a must see. If you like Stephen King movies then this is the show for you. It has allot of twists and turns that you are going to love. I hope you will enjoy it as much as out family has. When you think you have caught all the clues watch it again because you will see many more that you didn't see before.


the lost room kept me at the edge of my seat. i arranged my schedule around it. this is something i don,t normally do. is that all there is? are you making a movie or a series? i wanted more i was left with many unanswered questions. How did the human object come into existence? was he a physicist who specialized in time and space? Is he from an alternate universe? did he really die or did he return to his place of origin when he died? at his death did he go into another dimension? will the human objects replacement collect all the objects? will the replacement be hounded down? etc.... thank you for those entertaining hours give me more.


This truly memorable miniseries is far different from the usual Sci-Fi Channel TV movie. Rather than being cheesy and badly overacted, it is intriguing and truly well-acted. The plot is very complex, as many mysteries are introduced and solved throughout the six-hour show, but it all boils down to this: there are objects that were created by some event that caused them to have strange and interesting powers. One of the most powerful of these objects is the Key, which opens any door to a motel room out of time and space where it all started- and it has just fallen into Detective Joe Miller's hands. When his daughter becomes trapped in the room (the room automatically resets if the current occupant doesn't have the key), he goes on a quest to find her, and learns that there are over a hundred of the Objects, and that there are some who would do anything to get their hands on them. And so begins a fantastic series of mystery, intrigue, and murder. As Joe Miller gets deeper and deeper into the mystery of the Objects, he realizes that his life, should he manage to keep it, will never be the same again. The whole story is wonderfully acted, with performances that will blow your mind from almost all of them. And don't forget Elle Fanning, Dakota's little sister, who exudes the same kind of childlike wonder and charm that her sister has perfected to practically an art. The special effects are also very good, especially for a TV series. If I had one complaint, it would be that not every mystery is solved. However, there are theories that this will be the basis for a new ongoing television series by Sci-Fi, or at least another miniseries, and if so, I can hardly wait.


Big Spoiler Alert. So read this only if you've already seen it... or don't care. But you should see it.

First, I give this a 7. It's got some great actors, music, and directing. The creepy mood that the miniseries created was perfect. I sat and watched this straight through and wasn't bored once, despite it's being 5 hours long. UNFORTUNATELY, I couldn't escape two things. First, the massive plot holes, especially towards the ending, and second, the fact that they gave up on the mystery of the room by the final third of the film. One example of a huge hole: The Order. Why even create that subplot if you're going to leave it hanging the way they did? The only answer is that this was supposed to be a pilot. But it didn't feel that way. And there are dozens more that make equally little sense. Second, the mystery was just dropped. The whole question about how and why the room came to be and who the Occupant was before whatever happened happened was just left to float away as though no one would really care anyway. Sure, Joe wanted his daughter back and one could argue that he was thinking about her and nothing else. But to use that explanation is just giving the film an excuse to be sloppy. For a detective, he barely asked any questions and I feel as though it was intentional so we would forget that there was a mystery to begin with. People, especially detectives, are curious and I'm sure that if confronted with something this bizarre, they'd be asking questions for hours (and not get up and leave before the omelets even arrive).

Sadly, these two problems seriously deflated my impression of the series. In large part because they were so annoying. It started out so fun with the competing groups vying for control of the objects and the characters involved behind the secrecy. But once the last hour came, it was as though the studio sent down a memo telling the director to wrap it up so they could start filming a reality TV show on the sets.

This is another example of why you give people enough time to complete the story rather than force it into an allotted time slot. My only hope is that these problems I had were the result of an over-zealous editing team, and that if a DVD of the miniseries comes out, the scenes from the cutting-room floor can be picked up and re-attached so that some sense can be made out of the thing.

In conclusion, it's good. Very good. But it could have been great.


The Lost Room has a surprisingly original premise leaps out of a morass of hackneyed ideas that litter the landscape of movie science fiction. I loved the mystery and the novelty of the story line. The main characters were excellent and well performed by a solid cast. Especially notable in the quirky roles were Dennis Christopher as Ruber, and Ewen Bremner as Strizke. I never cared much for Peter Krause in Six Feet Under but he was very watchable in the lead role of Joe Miller. It was somewhat disappointing that much of the action depended on cars and telephones, which are to my mind the most boring of screen props, but nearly everything else in the scenery was interesting and different. The theological theories were most amusing, almost reminiscent of Douglas Adams at his best.


This is definitely a series pilot. It doesn't say it is, but it leaves far too many loose ends to quit with the tidy return of Joe Miller's daughter. 1) We have the Prophet of the Objects walking out of the hospital--and that is it, nothing more from him. What was the point if he just "realizes his destiny" so to speak 2) We have Joe becoming the "living object" through a conservancy of objects rule told to him by Eddie, whom we know absolutely nothing about, except that he lost his life as he knew it as a result of witnessing the EVENT. 3) We have the key being thrown into the motel room at the end of the final episode, and the door opening to show the dirt floor of the dilapidated motel room; but the final scene is of the door opening to show the key where Joe threw it. This poses a problem with the "rules" they set up for objects returned to the room, unless that is where the key would have been originally. 4) When the "Taken" mini-series ended,for example, each of the story lines neatly concluded and the questions for each character were resolved. It would have been a likely series, but it resolved tidily after 10 episodes. Not like The Lost Room...

My theory for a continuation of the series is that all of the objects need to be returned to the room. And the different groups, Collectors, The Order, and The Legion each have a different agenda for the objects. It would be logical for the Legion to realize that the objects need to be restored to complete this fissure in reality. Once they are returned, the power of all will be negated, or rather reconciled. I think that once that happens, the EVENT will be revealed; possibly, each object bore witness to the EVENT, and each was imprinted with a fragment of "power" associated with that witness, some more imprinted than others unless they come within a certain distance to other objects. Notice how many things weren't in the room when Joe would use the Key, as compared to what appeared in the room through the photograph. What objects were destroyed so that the photos could become objects? Also there are several objects which were never removed from the room, but would become Objects once done. It is the unanswered questions about what governs this "world" that make it a suitable series candidate.


This is one of the most innovative sci fi series lately, as many of the commenters here noticed already, but since it is a Sci-Fi Channel production, I guess their best interest is to make it into a series. So they got this great idea, they expanded it into an interesting mini series, and then left it open ended. Which sucks, but if they do turn it into a series, it could work, and that's tantalizing enough.

Someone here coined before me: this is like a superhero movie for objects. You have these every day objects, all coming from a motel room that now doesn't exist anymore, and each of them have weird powers, ranging from opening any door anywhere to boiling eggs or putting people to sleep. The reason for the main character to do stuff is because he lost his child daughter in a kind of limbo and he has to get her back.

Bottom line: a very nice Sci-Fi mini series. It promises a lot and I would hate to see it turn into one of those Lost/4400/Kyle-XY series that say nothing and do nothing and prove nothing. I would have preferred a more solid and thought through ending and I am willing to bet other people would have, too. By losing quality in the last episode they lost potential audience to the series, but this is the bottom line: watch it.


The subculture of the objects created in The Lost Room was an interesting side effect of having so many people know about such an incredible secret. There are many unanswered questions, which I hope will be addressed in series. What was the "event" in May 1961 that set things in motion. No real hint is given what this may have been, either terrestrial or not.

The most fascinating thing I've found is how it is still bouncing around in my mind. You just find yourself thinking about all the what ifs and loose ends. Anyway, it was a wonderful show with a lot of twists and unexpected events.


I have to give this movie very high marks because it maintained an incredibly high level of suspense, surprise and novelty through most of its 4.4 hour (without commercials) run-time. This is very unusual for the sci-fi genre - most ideas and plots are very well-known.

I won't give anything away about the story because the unusual plot is is part of the wonderful experience you'll get from watching this movie. Suffice it to say that the story follows a detective who comes across a very unusual key to a very unusual hotel room. Admittedly, it sounds like the movie is going to be a bomb (what I thought), but it is anything but that.

Once you start watching - you'll be hard pressed to stop. The pace is excellent: something interesting is always going on - hardly a moment is wasted during the multi-hour runtime.

This movie could not have been as good without a good strong lead character. Peter Krause does a great job - he presents a well-balanced, intelligent and easy to like character. The supporting characters are pretty well done - even though some of them are a bit wacky. Everything seems to work.

One thing I really appreciated in the movie was the intelligence of its characters. There aren't any ridiculous decisions that are made to advance the plot (or remove characters). In fact, they are mostly very smart ones - so you don't feel shortchanged by the story or the filmmakers. Applaud them in this case. It really makes a story go from interesting to fascinating.

Is it perfect? I can squabble about a few things towards the end - but it doesn't matter. What matters is that I was strongly entertained for 4.4 hours and am going to watch it again.

I could go on, but you'd be better served by watching the movie. This level of film-making will appeal to all moviegoers. Strongly recommended for all.


Intrigingly convoluted and hauntingly refreshing, this show is easily the best show of 2006! A+ all around, for all involved. A show like this does not appear very often! Suspention of disbelieve is the primary attribute of any good story. Even though I could have chosen to disbelieve, it never happened. Every story hole in the plot and every incredulous moment worked for The Lost Room. Please don't ruin it by turning it into a series! But a sequel mini-series could work. Every actor performed their part with sincerity and poise. Also, I would love to see more from the creative talents behind this series, so impressed am I!


Just one word to sum up this fantastic new dose of Sharpe and that is 'SU-BLOODY-PERB'.

It's been ten years since we saw Richard beat the Imperial Guard on the bloody field of Waterloo, and, like many of the life long fans, I believed that was the last time we would see Sharpe on screen. Of course, there was always a rumour that 'Tiger' would be made into a feature film but that hope died after a few years.

Now, we have been treated to an extra long two parter that was excellent in every aspect. A plentiful amount of tension, action and valour. Beano and Daragh were top hold as usual, excellent to see the old faces such as fopp Simmerson, Ramona and Wellington back on the screen.

The new characters were utterly splendid, Stephens as Dodd was one of the most evil villains ever to face Sharpe and Peter Hugo-Daly as Sgt Bickerstaff was a vile sight, yet a great performance. Even prompting Bean to jokingly remark in the 'making of' feature that he looked 'F***ing 'orrible'.

Not enough time to list all of the supporting cast, but none were a disappointment.

In conclusion, one of the best Sharpes to date and I would not be wrong in stating that the series as a whole is THE best historical drama to grace British television.

To any of the Producers that might browse these boards, I hope that another two movies are made to give a complete feel to the saga. Plus if you want any extras who want no pay, there's a huge fan base out there plus plenty of ready-trained re-enactors.

As you can tell, loved the whole show. Can't wait for the DVD on May 1st.


This one needed a few changes, since (unlike the books) this Indian outing is set *after* the Peninsular war and blends several of the "Indian" Sharpe books. This is of course unavoidable, partly because the cast are all ten years older but also because the first Sharpe film skipped over the Indian books and had Sharpe obtaining his field commission in Spain rather than in India. Thus they need another horrible sergeant to replace Hakeswill, for example. That is only relevant for obsessives and the whole thing is a proper dose of Sharpe- all the usual elements of the formula are well serviced. Some truly excellent moments and clearly with a higher budget that the originals. India provides a spectacular backdrop and the attention to detail is as impressive as ever (even if, as ever in the films, the cannon shot continues to explode inappropriately). Enjoy!


Sean Bean returned to the role of Richard Sharpe, after a nine year absence from the small screen, this weekend on ITV1 in the two-part story "Sharpe's Challenge". Based on three of Bernard Cornwell's novels, this adventure is set in Jaipur one year on from Napoleon's demise at the Battle of Waterloo. It sees Sean reunited with director Tom Clegg and sparring partner Daragh O'Malley, as Sergeant Patrick Harper, whom he sets out to find on a mission to India, but on the pretext of looking for General Burroughs' daughter Celia who has been kidnapped and is held hostage against attack at Khande Rao's fort.

Sharpe's opposition on this occasion is a rogue East India Company officer, Colonel William Dodd, played by Toby Stephens, able to put his fencing skills to good use again after his appearance as the villain Gustav Graves in the James Bond movie "Die Another Day"! The real power behind young maharajah Khande Rao, Dodd is aided and abetted against the English by the late maharajah's favourite consort, Madhuvanthi, played by Salman Rushdie's wife Padma Lakshmi. She tries to seduce Sharpe but, naturally, he's having none of it! And, not surprisingly, Sharpe has unfinished business with the Colonel! Dodd lays a trap for the troops of the East India Company who are coerced by General Sir Henry Simmerson into attacking the fort, regardless of the consequences to the indisposed General's daughter, and thus the stage is set for the final battle...

Watching the "Behind the Scenes" documentary after the concluding episode, on ITV3, it's a wonder the programme ever got made! The number of extras, and costumes required for them, hand-built rifles and cannons, learning how to become a soldier in ten days flat, not to mention Sean and Toby going down with Delhi belly both on the same day! But the finished product was a treat with a terrific cliffhanger at the end of episode one which wasn't immediately spoiled in the next time trailer! Having infiltrated the enemy, and unrecognised by Dodd, Sharpe has to prove his new found loyalty to the young maharajah when he is ordered by the Colonel to shoot his best friend...

If you missed it, and want to find out whether or not Harper survives, after all Sharpe is a good shot, the best, then the DVD is out at the beginning of May! It's worth seeing just for Peter-Hugo Daly's performance as Sergeant Shadrach Bickerstaff, a constant thorn in Sharpe's side, who steals every scene he is in with consummate ease!


This was classic Sharpe and classic Sean Bean. Combining Bernard Cornwell's original three books set in India into one Sharpe film, and resetting it after the battle of Waterloo has done nothing to detract from the enjoyment I had from the latest adventures of Richard Sharpe. The plot has taken my favourite bits from all three books and melded them into a fast paced and exciting film.

The acting from both Sean Bean and Daragh O'Malley is up to its usual high standard and is laced with the timing and sardonic wit that has made the previous Sharpe films such a success. Toby Stephens as General Dodd also puts in an admirable and believable performance, and to his credit he had me disliking his character also immediately. The film has some of the best special effects that I have seen from the Sharpe films, especially the storming of the breach sequence and the blowing of the mine. I think some credit should also go to the stunt performers and extras as the effort with which they throw themselves around the set adds to the action segments and makes them much more enjoyable.

The only thing that I can possibly think that would detract from all the praise I have for this film would be the over showing of Lucy Brown's bosom which, although perfectly lovely and appreciated, was overall probably a tad unnecessary. Personally I just felt that there wasn't much need for it plot wise, and it was only there to titillate (excuse the pun)and sensationalise.

I have seen and read all that is Sharpe and can honestly say that this is one of the best Sharpe films. It will be appreciated by old and new fans alike. Hopefully we will get to see some of the other books that haven't yet made it to film produced now. Fingers crossed!


It should be said that this will make for tougher viewing by those who have read Cornwell's books than those who have not. For those of you who haven't (and you're missing out) than you will see an excellent story with a higher budget than the original movies and fine acting by the entire cast, in particular Sean Bean, Daragh O'Malley, Michael Cochrane and Toby Stephens. For those of you who have read the books, here is the basic plot - I am doing my best to remain vague so as not to spoil the story: the plot opens with almost a word for word copy of the opening of Sharpe's Triumph (the second Sharpe book set in India). Suddenly the viewer (and Sharpe) are plunged forward thirteen years and Sharpe is sent by Wellington on a mission similar to that which he is sent to in Sharpe's Devil (the final book chronologically). Watching it a second time, readers will realise that while most of the action in India is true to the book, it picks events almost at random from Sharpe's Tiger, Sharpe's Triumph and Sharpe's Fortress (the three books set in India), while simultaneously moving them from the period of 1799-1803 to 1817. In order to compensate for heroes and villains parted (or never met) during previous movies, Hakeswill is replaced by Bickerstaff (brilliantly played by Peter-Hugo Daly), Morris is replaced by Simmerson (Michael Cochrane is splendid as the gutless git), Lawford, McCandless, and (if you're picky) Blas Vivar are all replaced by Harper, and the Sultan is replaced by his son. Despite the changes in setting, the events in the movie are still very close to the book - all credit to the authors, and the acting is so professional that the characters are entirely believable.


Reminiscent of the film "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", this feature takes aspects of several of the earlier Sharpe novels and combines them to create a new plot/storyline. Fine acting by both the main and supporting casts (Toby Stephens is perfect as Dodd), with sets and effects that show a more lavish budget than previously-issued Sharpe installments, this movie may puzzle and maybe irritate devoted readers of the Sharpe novels. At the same time, it addresses the earlier (chronologically in the series, if not in order of publishing) exploits of Private/Sergeant/Lieutenant Sharpe during the Indian campaigns.


The welcome return of Sean Bean and Darragh O'Malley to the screen in Sharpe was so overdue. I love historical drama and the feature length really did the period justice. Fantastic production. All the actors were excellent. Completely in role. Excellent casting. I felt irritated I wasn't aware of the 'Making of Sharpe's Challenge' so didn't record it. Now I've missed it. I wish some historical dramas were preceded with an actual documentary about the events including famous works of art. There's a famous oil painting of the forlorn hope attacking a fort similar to this isn't there? I'd have liked to have looked out for the depictions in the film. Thanks to Sean Bean, Darragh O'Malley for their work. Don't give up on us. Also Shaggrat 'don't you know we're at Warrr? where have i heard that before!!!! Boromir?


What could be better than spending another 2+ hours in the company of two of TV's greatest heroes, Sharpe & Harper? Sean Bean and Daragh O'Malley look a little the worse for wear, but their chemistry is still working and there is plenty of swashbuckling afoot in this Indian adventure. The scenery is magnificent (I'm SO glad they didn't try to film it, let's say, in the UKRAINE!) and the cast is first rate. This new SHARPE has all the ingredients that made its predecessors so enjoyable to watch. And since they've obviously thrown more money at this one it looks better. (For instance, a lot more extras are used in battle scenes than we're used to seeing in earlier installments.) At the risk of being called a "purist" or an "obsessive" (words already bandied about in this forum), I have to say I'm disappointed that we're probably never going to get to see Cornwell's three Sharpe Indian novels presented as they were written. Of course, I realize there were many changes made in the earlier episodes, but here are a couple of reasons why:

1. The three Indian books give us a good look at the very young Sharpe and the formation of his character. But that would require another (younger) actor, which the producers realize would diminish their audience.

2. We miss the wonderful situations involving the young(er) Hakeswill, played so marvelously by Pete Postlethwaite in earlier episodes. The Indian books let us revel in Sharpe's personal battle with this demented enemy. The producers had to come up with about four villains in SHARPE'S CHALLENGE to make up for him.

Bernard Cornwell, realizing he was sitting on a gold mine, has milked Sharpe's adventures, adding battles before, after, and in between those of the original set of books. And long may he milk! However, this means that we will miss authentic dramatizations of these later additions to the Sharpe canon (cannon, geddit?).


Loved this latest entry in the marvelous Sharpe series! Let's hope this episode will pave the way for more episodes. Bean and O'Malley, as well as the ever-irritating, simpering Simmerson (Michael Cochrane) and perennial favorite Hugh Fraser as Wellington, perform in their usual superlative manner. After so many outings together, they feel just like old friends in one's living room. Bean, despite looking older and a trifle exhausted, continues to exude sensuality. India, as well as its inhabitants, shimmers; however, the director Tom Clegg would have done well to ignore the peremptory entreaties of Indian/American actress (using the term advisedly, of course) Padma Lakshmi, when she demanded to be cast as the scheming courtesan, Madhuvanthi. Lakshmi is gorgeous, but she speaks in a flat tone, often slurring her words; she exudes all the passion of a dead rat and is not in the least seductive. Lucy Brown, on the other hand, joins a long line of engagingly chaste Sharpe heroines, at least until our hero seduces her (in the loveliest possible way, of course), as Celia, the kidnapped general's daughter. The producers did overdo the bust shots, especially as necklines had crept higher by 1817, but Brown is pretty, a fair English rose to juxtapose against the darker beauties of India. She is also spirited and conveys her feelings in that subtle manner we admire in British performers. Toby Stephens is a perfect cretin as the renegade William Dodd; he presents a worthy addition to the nasty stable of Sharpe villains. Since those early episodes with Pete Postlethwaite as Hakeswill, the shoes of a Sharpe villain have been almost impossible to fill. Bravo to the BBC for ushering us back to this beloved world of Sharpe and his compatriots, as well as his enemies!


I've seen all 14 previous episodes of the Richard Sharpe series. I'm a very devoted fan and was incredibly surprised to learn that new episode would be aired on BBC America August, 2006. The last time the episodes aired was way back in 1997. Hooray for Sean Bean's devotion to this TV program. He first portrayed Richard Sharpe in 1992, unknown in Hollywood, and only a star in England. Now he's an international Hollywood blockbuster star since LOTR, but still agreed to return to TV for Sharpe, took a huge pay cut to do TV because he loves the part of Sharpe.

The production values, sets, costumes are outstanding. The biggest budget production in the entire 14 episode series. Toby Stephens is deliciously evil as the villain, Lucy Brown gives a touching, luminous performance. Padma Lakshi cannot act her way out of a paper bag and the other Indian actress who played the princess should have been cast in the courtesan role. I loved it, although there were a few flaws.

The battle scenes are much more complex and with an enormous cast of extras compared to the previous 14 episodes. It is an international cast of very fine supporting actors. However, the actor who portrays Sgt. Bickerstaff is very "hammy" and over the top. However, the few flaws I mentioned don't hamper a very fine production, which is a classic!


i thought simerson was as much as a bastard as ever, sharpe hasn't lost his touch with the Lady's. all in all its great. i wish they'd make another series out of it.it was very good if you watch it you will not be wasting your time.full of adventure action and fun.it will have to be bought when it comes out on DVD.the bad guy was ever so slightly insane.on to pickersmith wasn't he awful? the french having honour i would never have thought it after the first lot.man singing at the end was so cool it brought so many memoires from the last episode when they were at waterloo.long live sharpe the french couldn't kill neither will any one else.


The war's been over for two years. Up-from-the-ranks retired colonel Richard Sharpe (Sean Bean) is, more or less happily, making a living as a farmer. And then he's summoned to the Duke of Wellington's home in London. There, the Duke explains, a crisis is arising in India on the frontier between the British and the Mahratta princes. British agents have disappeared. Reports of armed rebellion have surfaced. The Duke wants Sharpe to find out what is happening and, if possible, put a stop to it. Sharpe responds as any experienced ex-soldier would when called back to the colors...he declines. Then he learns the last agent to go missing was his old comrade, Patrick Harper (Daragh O'Malley). When we next see Sharpe he's making his way through dusty Indian villages towards the encampment of a small British army not far from the fortress of the Rajah of Ferraghur. Happily, he encounters Harper, who had gone undercover in an attempt to gain information. From what we know and have seen, Sharpe's task will be extremely dangerous and fraught with risk. He will meet an enemy worthy of him, an English traitor named William Dodd (Toby Stephens), arrogant, vicious and supremely capable. A deserted lieutenant from the British-led Indian Army, Dodd is now styled a general who is leading the forces of the young Rajah. When Sharpe and Harper pretend to be deserters themselves in order to join the Rajah's army, Sharpe will also encounter the beautiful and deadly Madhuvanthi (Padma Lakshmi), regent and elder sister of the Rajah. The Rajah, the regent and Dodd all approve of the old ways when dealing with traitors, captured soldiers, thieves and other malefactors. They have nails hammered into the skulls of the unfortunate captives.

Don't hit the fast-forward button or you'll regret it. This turns out to be one of Sharpe's best adventures. This also may be Sharpe's most challenging assignment, with the fate of the Empire, as well as the honor and life of a general's daughter, hanging in the balance. At 138 minutes it has plenty of time and a plentiful budget to set up the background and create many scenes with lots of action. There's a big cast of extras. And there's a great battle where hundreds of soldiers scramble to gain entrance to the rajah's fortress through a towering wall.

Sharpe's adventures, based on the novels by Bernard Cornwell, began on television in 1993 with Sharpe's Rifles. The last was Sharpe's Waterloo in 1997. Sean Bean has aged well in the interim. If anything, he looks even tougher. Daragh O'Malley may be a bit heavier but he still looks capable of clearing out a bar on Friday night. From the casts of those old programs we have a brief moment with Hugh Frazier, again playing Wellington. Sharpe also encounters again that pompous, cowardly aristocrat, General Sir Henry Simmerson, still played with lip- smacking relish by Michael Cochrane. Simmerson thinks Sharpe is a jumped-up peasant who needs to be put in his place, and tries hard to do so. I still miss the late Sergeant Obadiah Hakeswell, leering and repellent, who liked to talk into his hat when not trying to shoot Sharpe in the back. He was played with verve by Pete Postlethwaite. His replacement in Sharpe's Challenge, played by Peter-Hugo Daly, is Sergeant Shadrach Bickerstaff. Bickerstaff is a mouth breather, a leering bully, a resentful opportunist, a man who probably last saw a bar of soap when he last brushed his rotting teeth.

The prize for villainy, however, goes to Toby Stephens as Dodd. He's not so much unhinged as he is utterly logical when it comes to protecting his self-interest and justifying his resentments. Plus, of course, killing makes him feel good. He's a man to avoid, especially if he says he likes you. Stephens is a first-rate actor. He can do villains so well I hope he doesn't do too many more of them. He'll find himself typecast. For a much more subtle and complex take on villainy, watch him as Kim Philby in Cambridge Spies.

Sharpe's Challenge is a first-rate rouser. It's a welcome addition to the Sharpe set.

"Though kings and tyrants come and go / A soldier's life is all I know

I'll live to fight another day / Over the hills and far away."


I've not read any of the books so this review is based purely on watching Sharpe's Challenge on TV.

As far as TV fare goes I'd rate this as a middle rung production, the battle scenes are nicely done and attention to detail in costuming is above average, for example it's good to see soldiers and officers who are not pristine and clean. Locations are stunning and the actors put in good performances overall, I can't think of a dud performance in Sharpe's Challenge.

On the down side the plot is pretty thin and reads like a typical boys own adventure book, lots of daring-do with the usual damsel in distress type scenario. It's definitely not brain fodder but is better than most of the dross on TV at present.


I loved Sharpe's Challenge. As usual Sean Bean made every moment of it worth it. I did however notice some things missing. Sharpie's flogging scars had disappeared and the gunshot wound scar on his chest on the left was gone as well as the scar on his right cheek. Hmm... Other than that little trivial thing this Sharpie is worth the watch and I do watch it over and over and over again. Sean just makes every movie he is in worth watching. His acting ability is so fantastic. I gave him a 10 for this Sharpie film. Older Sharpe is better. If you haven't seen it yet. Please do you will love it. There is a lot of action in it for the guys and a lot of Sean Bean for the ladies. It is also good to see Daragh O'Malley again as Harper. The combination of Bean and O'Malley makes for some comedy in spots.


So, I give Sharpe's Challenge a 7 out of 10, primarily because I liked the 14 earlier Sharpe movies so much. 'Challenge', however, is a bit disappointing. And it is so because the makers decided to go for an epic sweep in presenting their story. For me, what made the earlier Sharpe movies so wonderful was that epic story lines were taken and woven into an intimate scale.

'Challenge', on the other hand, fell in love with its own imagery and widescreen panoramas. But, what worked for Lawrence of Arabia (remember Omar Sharif's Ali emerging as pinpoint on the horizon, until he finally rides up to Peter O'Toole's foregrounded Lawrence at the waterhole? Magnificent!) doesn't for Sharpe. Other than the wide shots of the fortress and the line of troops marching across the countryside, there is no need for the camera to linger in 'Challenge'. Alas, it continues to do so, however, and Sharpe and Harper become diminished and at times even lost in the process.

Finally, a word about what else is missing. (Possible spoiler) Namely, the rest of Sharpe's riflemen. Inevitable, of course, after the way things played out in Sharpe's Waterloo. But still it's hard to forget all those memorable characters from the earlier movies, such as Hagman, Harris, and Frederickson, whose story lines were often as or more interesting than even Sharpe's.

Oh, well. Maybe Sean Bean and Daragh O'Malley will be up for yet another installment of Sharpe's adventures. Already, they've contributed to one of the greatest adventure series of its type. And a special debt of thanks is due to Sean Bean for not outgrowing his britches, after a little Hollywood success, and coming back into the role of Sharpe with such energy and commitment.


In my private library Bernard Cornwell's novels are the most read. And the Sharpe novels do show some wear and tear. As it is with the movies. As soon as my partners hears the song "Over the Hills..." she knows it is time to visit her friend. I am so glad they succeeded in merging the first three books into one movies and make it believable that everything takes place after Waterloo. There is of course one setback: I do so miss Obediah Hakeswill. But Sergeant Bickerstaff is a worthy replacement. And that while Bickerstaff is such a nice guy in the novel. But Dodd is there as evil as he is in Sharpe's Fortress. A great movie and a worthy successor to series. Am I the only one who misses the rest of the gang? Micheal Mears (Rifleman Cooper), John Tams (Daniel Hagman)and Jason Salkey (Rifleman Harris. A pity but not all of us have the luck of the Irish.


This is basically just a rehash of the novel Sharpe's Tiger, with some minor recasting with Sergeant Hakeswill as Sergeant Bickerstaff, The Tippoo as Major Dodd, and Lieutenant Lawford as Harper. But in the book, the point of infiltrating the fortress was to rescue Colonel McCandless, who knew about that mine planted in the western walls. Because the new plot is to rescue some girl, It just doesn't hold up. And historically, there WERE no major uprisings in India after the Napoleonic war, so any historical accuracy is out the window. Sean Bean, Darugh O' Malley and Toby Stephens all did well, but any time one of the girls or that French guy opened their mouths I just thought "You probably should've done more than one take of that scene." I liked the flashback to Sharpe's Triumph when Sharpe was almost killed by Dodd, but the idea that Dodd would have been allowed to live for 14 years is just ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous is the idea that the french would help Sharpe not 3 years after Waterloo. The explosions were fabulous and the production values were the highest they've been for any Sharpe, but the story, script, and supporting actors were the weakest they've ever been. If only they'd done "Sharpe's Devil" instead. This gets a B/B-


I was very much looking forward to seeing how Sharpe got on after 10 years, but it seemed at times like being reacquainted with an old friend I've lost contact with and we both seem to have changed. I noticed bean's acting limitation here; I always made allowances for him in earlier episodes given his social background etc., but here he just seems constantly numb. He doesn't even make use of the french he must have learned during his time in retirement in France. And the mistakes he constantly makes- why in hell does he actually give his real name when acting as a spy? My girlfriend kept rolling her eyes at the constant changes in motive and plot twists that kept the story going. And the idea of meeting Harper and the others in the span of a day in a country the size of India right at the beginning tested my patience from the start. To have a motley of soldiers (no tracking shot to show how few extras are actually being used) carrying the same East Indian Co. flag as a battle flag as opposed to what by then amounted to a Tesco banner was something else that didn't seem right to me. I was keen to see to former Bond baddies square off but, at 140 minutes, it dragged on. How Sharpe after one beating after another managed to shrug it off when my back puts me out is another stretch of believability. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com


Sharp's Challenge! I very much enjoyed this episode. Found it by flipping channels, had thought that this series was over. Sean Bean once again displays his great acting ability. No cheesy acting, settings were great, supporting cast (as usual) was outstanding. This episode is very much like the others was very well written. Once again one of Sharp's nemesis shows his cowardice. Sharp has the support of this commanding general. This general see's the cowardice of one of his officers and sends him packing. Great acting by all. Well rounded, probably one of the best Sharp's episode. I do think that the requirement of "10 lines of text" is a bit inane, and leads one to write "chatter" just to fill up space.


As having followed the complete film series of Sharpe I was anticipating a follow up to this remarkable series! Sharpe's challenge has his flaws (begin of second part the story goes a little flat) but the last half hour makes up for this and is as great as it should be. There wasn't much action in this movie as in the previous movies. This of course there is no real war going on. Although Dodd is a great villain,you never get the feeling he is a real threat. For me this could have been done better. I mean India is a very large continent and can provide for great battles with ease. The story could have been bigger. But maybe this will happen in the future. For now I enjoyed this movie a lot and surely wasn't disappointed.


You'll need a program to tell you what is going on, because like most modern actors, these bores cannot enunciate. Without closed caption, forget it.

Which is just as well, because it is garbage by any standards.

It's set in the early 1800s, with British and French soldiers in the middle East. There's a lot of killing and action, but it doesn't work, because you have no idea why it is going on, or how it is going on. It is a muddled mess.

The poor speaking skills of the actors are across the board, which means the director and casting crew are to blame more than anyone. And no one cares.

The action doesn't work, because it is just another neo Nazi idealist director and writers contriving every instance to save blonde women and butcher brown eyed brunettes. The director is so heavy handed at this, that the audience just doesn't care, and is thoroughly bored by the same old routine. Obviously made for the neo Nazi and female market, since anyone else will be completely turned off by this.

Not much else to say about this garbled garbage.


A long awaited return of Sharpe. This was a very good return for the hero that is Sharpe, but I must say that it was a disappointment! 8 months since hearing about it, 8 years of watching the same episodes and knowing the script off by heart, and a few discrepancies that really spoil an otherwise top notch programme.

Didn't Sergeant Harper become a Sergent Major at Sharpe's Regiment? Why has he been demoted? I do believe Sergeant Shadrach Bickerstaff played a Sergeant in Sharpe's Gold, however he is not named. When did Sharpe come across this character again and what has caused such hatred between the two? Sharpe is not the same without the chosen men - Sharpe is meant to be a hero of the common soldier, but the only man under his command here is Harper! Harper's entry into this episode is simply comically stupid. A large Irishman disguised as a local rebel and joining in an attack on Sharpe and a group of lancers, whilst carrying the 7-barreled volley gun. Even if he is meant to be an undercover agent, this is still stretching the imagination! The fort siege sequences and the storming of the breech are awful when compared to Sharpe's Company, and that was supposedly on a much smaller budget! Have they forgotten how to make Sharpe and what made it so good? No complicated storyline, just a job needing doing, and Sharpe being the man to do it. This focus' too much on a plot that is not very strong to start with! Rant over, I will still be going out to buy the DVD, and will enjoy every second that is on offer, superb!! Did anyone else notice how it was left fairly wide open for another return? Sharpe's Flash (an old Sharpe meeting with a young Flashman), now there is a thought!!


Surprisingly accurate rendition of this "typical" Rex Stout book. Setting accurately depicted the era (early 50's). Wolfe and Archie nicely portrayed, including the crucial "multilevel" relationship which they enjoy.

Very pleased to see Rex Stout's dialog used frequently throughout the production. Hard to improve on his witty and intelligent characterizations. Plot development was orderly and included all the necessary ingredients and characters. A full cast of the principle Stout characters is essential and in this case provided.

Summary: I heartily recommend this film and hope for many sequels. Hopefully the sequels will return to the earliest books of the genre set in the mid to late 30's.


Whatever else might be said about the overall entertainment value of this production, Rex Stout would not be disappointed by the production decisions or the casting of this nicely drawn adaptation.

The movie is brimming with gorgeous period details, handsome Studebakers and drab office waiting rooms. The physical characteristics of Wolfe's entire world in a brownstone appear here to be spot on, as though the producers were preparing it for the famously particular sleuth himself. Maury Chaykin brings to his character the thought, care, and gravitas worthy of a King Lear, and manages to present a Nero Wolfe at once psychically wounded, showcat-finicky, masculine, compulsive about his orderly routine, insightful in the workings of others, and a little bit clueless about himself. Although the violence of his angry outbursts seems a little overmodulated, a better choice for the role is hard to imagine.

Archie Goodwin is a less boldly written role, but in this production he seems fully realized and very natural. Timothy Hutton gets the right tone when Archie is dealing with his exacting boss, and it doesn't seem at all odd that this smart aleck would be loyal to a man who routinely tells him where to sit. (The entire snoop team's devotion to Wolfe is palpable, felt not so much in what's said as in what need not be said. All this seems like a minor miracle in a TV movie.) Archie seems very much to enjoy manipulating the hapless participants in the mystery, as though escorting guests out the door before they are ready is wicked fun. (Only Bruce Willis -circa 1988- comes to mind as closer to the ideal Archie - you really don't want to see Tim Hutton's Archie take a punch.)

The plot's something of a tangle, and women characters don't get a chance to shine, but these shortcomings go straight back to Rex Stout. The joys of this story are in the unique and symbiotic relationship of Nero Wolfe and Archie, and in the mystery of a detective whose gifts of insight stop just short of the bathroom mirror.


As a longtime fan of Nero Wolfe novels, Maury Chaykin, and Timothy Hutton, I had high expectations of this movie. I was not disappointed. I watched it for the first time with some friends that knew nothing of Nero Wolfe and we all enjoyed it. The casting was superb and the sets and props seemed to be authentic for the period. My one complaint is that Saul Rubinek does not make a good Saul Panzer. Granted, he had a well-described character to live up to - one whose abilities the author describes in an awe-striking way. But he is not at all what I had pictured in my mind. A very minor criticism of a very excellent movie.


Nice try to put on screen books of my favorite author. It looks like director loves them too. Of course, events go too fast - the books are pretty thick, and the time for the TV series is strictly limited, nevertheless scenery is the good work too. Maybe characters are not quite as I think of them - Wolfe should be bigger (handsomer :)), and Archie should be a little more attractive, and Fritz little younger. Saul+Fred+Orrie are good, and Cremer is perfect. But it's the best effort of putting the books on screen I've seen. It's made with love and application.


Nero Wolfe has consistently defied a good translation to the screen, perhaps because so much of the attraction in Rex Stout's novels is the wit of the language. But this is the best job so far. Best casting is Timothy Hutton as Archie Goodwin, who succeeds in combining the smart alec and hardboiled just like the character in the book. Chaykin makes a good effort as Wolfe; he isn't really BIG enough, so that his high-pitched tirades don't really do justice to Wolfe's bellowing. Wolfe's office is just as you could imagine it, down to the red leather chair. The orchid room, by contrast, is disappointing--need more flowers, more jungle. Not sure why Golden Spiders was chosen as plot--there are perhaps too many characters and the suspects aren't developed enough. Hopefully, this will be the first in a series of films.


One must watch this film closely or run the risk of missing something very relevant. I watched very closely and still missed the whodunnit part. Like Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot [another weirdo dick], big Nero likes to gather all the suspects' together and tell each one how the caper went down and then name the guilty party. Somehow, the big finale went straight over my little pointy head: I still don't have the vaguest inkling who the baddie is. Still, I consider this a very good film: loved the locales and old cars. What a great study Nero had. I'd give a month's pay for that red chair.


The promise of the series has been better than the fulfillment.

Some of the programs, particularly those hour-long ones, have

been ludicrous (A Neronian word?) and chaotic because of the

condensation required to fit the time limits. This particular one

belongs to the better installments.

As has been mentioned before, Maury Chaykin fits the description

of the part but is less than commanding even as Timothy Hutton is

fine. Perhaps Thayer David was the best Nero but he did only one

installment before his untimely death (Perhaps a result of the

previously mentioned physical requirements for the part.). William

Conrad, I thought, was twinkly and simply awful.

The others are fine in their recurring smaller parts and the series

has the proper period feel of the novels.


This is a reasonably faithful (to Rex Stout) movie and it has very good period piece settings. My major difficulty is with Maury Chaykin as Wolfe. Yes, he's a significant improvement over William Conrad--but a bit too distant and peevish and his shouting rants are not quite the bellowing that one associates with Wolfe. I find it difficult to relate Chaykin's acting and persona to the fictional character. Moreover, one feels mostly unsympathetic with his portrayal of Wolfe--nor does he have the mass,size or presence of the fictional Wolfe (what I would have given to see the great ORSON WELLES play this part in his day--he would have been perfect in size, bombast, wit, love of fine food and wine etc.; Raymond Burr would have made another fine Wolfe, in my opinion). Perhaps John Goodman--who certainly has the size and acting skill--would have been a better choice as Wolfe. In the books, Wolfe had the ability to silence people with one glance; he took in bushels of air in each breath. In short, he was a giant in size and intellect among men. Chaykin simply isn't and cannot convey this important side of Wolfe.

Timothy Hutton is much better as Archie Goodwin, Wolfe's "legs and eyes" and banter between them is faithful to the books. However, the third person in the Wolfe household--Fritz--is also not quite right in his role. Here he has a Frenchish accent while in the Stout books Fritz, as befits his name, is Central European, as I recall, with a Germanic accent. Otherwise, Colin Fox looks and acts his part well. Others have commented about the orchid/planting room as not being large enough and having enough plants. I think a worse problem is that Wolfe is shown in this movie as if he is still in the office; Wolfe really worked with plants and got himself dirty--he didn't just peer at plants through a magnifying glass.

Still, overall, this is an enjoyable period piece and a must for lovers of the great detective created by Rex Stout. To the person from Canada who wrote in, you must read the books to understand the Wolfe-Goodwin-Fritz dynamics which in a sense are the real "action" in the series. The Stout-Wolfe books are one of the great achievements of detective fiction and if I am griping a bit here, it is only because they set such a high mark.


This is one of the few non-swashbuckling films of Wicked, Wicked Ways Errol and one where he plays a character totally unsympathetic. He does it not merely well but superbly. He could act. Tragically, he was so damn good at using his natural athletic abilities in costume dramas, he never got good roles until he was over the hill. This film made right after the time of his famous sex trial reveals another side of a talented actor. Garson is great as is Robert Young, albeit coming off a bit insipid alongside Errol, playing a foppish socialite. The story of this film is a bit tiresome by today's standards and drags in spots. It is gorgeously photographed with lush costuming but it's Flynn who steals the show-- without even trying. He was only 50 when he died from a debauched lifestyle. Sadly, his last film, Cuban Rebel Girls, made during Fidel's revolt, is an abortion and a pathetic tribute to a man, a talented man, who trilled us all so many times in our youth with his panache, elan and verve. But, this little film, made about 10 years before his demise shows he was indeed, an actor and not merely a star.


The main problem with this film is the casting. As Greer Garson's cold husband, Errol Flynn was cast. He is nothing short of superb, and he and Garson have great chemistry together. But the casting of Garson's lover went to Robert Young, and he is totally wrong for the role. One can never accept Garson's feelings for him over Errol Flynn!


Greer Garson is "That Forsyte Woman" in a 1949 film that also stars Errol Flynn, Walter Pidgeon, Robert Young and Janet Leigh. The story is told in flashback. Garson is Irene, a beautiful but poverty-stricken woman who marries Soames Forsyte (Flynn), admitting from the first that she does not love him. Soames isn't the only Forsyte in whom Irene has an interest - she loves the paintings done by Jolyon Forsyte (Pidgeon), though she learns quickly that he is the family outcast, not even permitted to see his daughter, June (Leigh). Irene seeks to bring Jolyon back into the family and to reunite him with June, who is about to be married to an architect, Philip Bosinney (Young) - while she herself is falling for Philip, and he with her.

MGM spared not one cent in giving "That Forsyte Woman" primo attention - the cost of Garson's gorgeous costumes alone could have probably paid for three lesser films; the Technicolor, sets, and photography are all stunning; and in Flynn and Garson, you have two top stars.

Unfortunately, the superficial gloss can't cover the film's flaws. For an adulteress, Greer Garson is pretty ladylike - there is no unbridled passion - and zero chemistry - between Irene and Philip. In fact, the inference is that while she loves Philip in her heart, nothing except a few kisses has actually happened. Not being familiar with the source material, I don't know if this was the case or not. And I'm sorry - if I had to pick between the handsome Flynn and Robert Young wearing some sort of curly hairpiece, I know which way I'd go. Philip Bosinney is described as a little older than June - well, Janet Leigh was 21 or so at the time of the filming and probably playing an 18-year-old. Young was about 40. And looked it. Fond as I am of Young's work, this was blatant miscasting. The role needed to be sexed up a little so we see what the fuss is about - Robert Mitchum, Burt Lancaster, someone hot and in that 30-ish age range.

Errol Flynn does an excellent job as the angry, frustrated and jealous Soames. It seems that with a few exceptions, by the late '40s, Flynn no longer played roles that exhibited what made him Errol Flynn - charm, dash, a devilish smile, and natural athleticism. While this is certainly a better role than he had in "Cry Wolf," again, it does not play to Flynn's strengths. Walter Pidgeon is very good as Jolyon and of course he's great with Garson. He should be, considering all the films they made together.

Though the story isn't that absorbing, I still recommend this film for its sheer beauty - not only in its look, but for the beauty of Garson, Flynn and Leigh, and the sturdy handsomeness of Pidgeon. "That Forsyte Woman" is a cake with an incredible icing, but the cake is pretty dry.


How could any woman choose another man over Errol Flynn? I don't know either. That's why I didn't buy the premise of this but was impressed with the performances. Errol Flynn is always great to watch and proves here that he can deliver the acting goods and always of course looks distractingly handsome. Greer Garson and Walter Pigeon are a treat to watch together. A previous poster mentioned the fact that Greer Garson having an adulterous affair didn't work because she was just too likable really doesn't apply here because the fact that their marriage is unhappy is established. Robert Young comes off less sympathetic than Flynn's Soames Forsythe, in my opinion. Here he takes advantage of the young and naive June Forsythe and the unhappy marriage of Mrs. Forsythe at the same time. The story is contrived but overall a good flick to watch on a rainy day. I would recommend it.


John Galsworthy's sometimes ponderous but very interesting social drama "The Forsyte Saga" has been attempted as a TV-mini series since this production of a feature film, based on the earlier books of the series, was issued by MGM Studios' heads. The film they produced turned out to be an absolutely-gorgeous color offering, by anyone's standards, featuring costumes by Walter Plunkett and Valles, cinematography by talented Joseph Ruttenberg, and art direction by Daniel B. Cathcart and Cedric Gibbons. The interesting original music for the film was composed by Bronislau Kaper, and Edwin B. Willis produced lovely set decorations. The script for the piece was furnished by Jan Lustig, Ivan Tors and James B. Williams, drawing the events largely from "The Man of Property" by John Galsworthy. In the cast were lovely red- haired Greer Garson as Irene Forsyte, and Errol Flynn as Soames Forsyte, the eponymous new-money tycoon of the "The Man of property"s" original title. Walter Pigeon played young Jolyon Forsyte, whom the family has disowned for following an artistic career, among other complaints. Robert Young was architect Philip Bossinney and respected British actors played the delightfully and frighteningly stuffy Forsyte family including Halliwell Hobbes, Lumsden Hare, Aubrey Mather and more. Janet Leigh played young June Forsyte and Harry Davenport the elder Jolyon Forsyte. With all this talent, the film which is quite good could perhaps have been made even better. Compton Bennett's direction is angular, always interesting and more-than-competent at all points by my standards. The story-line, for those who have never seen it, involves a loveless marriage between Soames Forsyte, who regards his wife as an article of property and Irene, a 19th-century woman who has to marry, being without profession, who grows to despise his miserly nouveau riche pretensions, controlling behavior, and bullyings. She takes up with an excitingly-imaginative architect, who has been hired by Soames to build their new home. Finding out about their attachment, Soames uses his financial power against Bossinney, who grows distraught and then is killed in a street accident. Irene turns to the black-sheep of the family, who had married for love, the artist Jolyon, leaving Soames to confront the colossal failure of his pretensions. The classically-trained Garson and Pigeon are wonderful and memorable in their parts. Flynn tries hard, but lacks a bit of the vocal power he developed soon after this film as released; nevertheless he is more-than-adequate and intelligent in his role. The entire supporting cast ranges from very good to even better by my standards; but their parts seldom allow them to stand out for very long in this look at an entire social class. As a writer, I must suggest that the only loss of power in this strong film appears to stem from MGM's studio heads asking for a script that stressed Soames's emotional coldness; the strongest line of development appeared to have been to stress the tyranny aspect of Soames as versus the regard for individual dignity and rights-- regardless of the wealth owned by any man--on the part of Irene and Jolyon and the other ethical sorts in the work. The film has quite a bit to say about the misuses of power, I suggest; it depicts the imperial side of Britain and the postmodernist unethicals it spawned, folk who never noticed that they were acquisitive types who seemed to admire piracy more than honesty. "That Forsyte Woman" I find to be a very absorbing, beautiful and sobering cinematic production.


PBS made two great mini-series on "The Forsyte Saga" in 1968 and 2002. MGM made a good movie, too, about the Forsytes; they called it "That Forsyte Woman". It is a shorter version, but tells the story perfectly.

Casting Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) for Soames Forsyte is very creative, but it worked. This is Mr. Flynn's best performance. Greer Garson plays Soames beautiful but suffering wife, Irene. The chemistry between them makes the movie work. Too bad these great friends never worked again.

What does not work is Robert Young as Philip Bosinney. He was the wrong type and accent. The director should have hired an English actor for the Bosinney role.

The color scheme of the movie is black and white, but it is filmed in color. That is distracting! It is a black and white story. However, the movie is still interesting and it moves quickly.


Interesting film and a total change of pace for Errol Flynn, playing an erudite gentleman who is as nasty as can be. He literally forces Greer Garson into a loveless marriage and of course she looks to be loved.

For a change, her usual movie partner, Walter Pidgeon, takes on a supporting role and is totally subordinate to Garson all together. It is interesting how they find love together.

Another interesting casting move here is Robert Young, the suitor of Janet Leigh, niece of Garson and Flynn. You would never suspect that Garson could find love with Young but they do until tragedy intervenes.

This is still basically a story of Victorian England with an upper middle class family's snobbishness along with their traditional folkways and mores.