I've been a fan of the novel for quite a long time, in fact one of the publishing agents came to give a lecture when I was in college on the nature of getting your work published and kept citing the due to be released novel as an example and even then the premise he described sounded amazing. I finally got around to reading it when it went into paperback and it's a book I have recommended countless times to people of all ages and interests. It's a great example of not just a unique and beautiful story but a clever way of telling it.

The movie on the other hand, can only be described as a disappointing mess. First of all, it immediately removes the mystery of Henry's first meeting with Claire at the Library, when he is 28 and she is 20. Why? Because it was just literally yelled at us that Henry is a time traveler. Granted, that's the name of the movie, but it just made the whole encounter feel stale.

Which is sort of the problem of the movie in general. It presents many of the events of the novel, though many are left out as well, but it does so in a very bland "well here's what happened" sort of way. None of the humor or passion of the characters in the book is there, we never really get the feeling as to why Henry or Claire love each other, it all feels sort of cold, as if the characters had decided "well this is inevitable apparently."

One major thing missing though is how much of a hassle Henry's time traveling is for his own life and everyone else's around him. There's only one moment where he leaves for a long period of time, and otherwise it is just a nuisance for him and Claire. Gone entirely is his ex-girlfriend Ingrid, gone is the eerie recognition everyone around Claire has for Henry since he resembles the man she was occasionally seen with years earlier. Also gone is the fact that Henry witnesses his own death and also speaks with Claire's father and brother at the time, and Claire having arrived shortly afterwards having just missed the death too (actually to be honest, the way his death happens in the movie feels entirely avoidable). Oddly, though he is mentioned, Claire's brother is not even in the movie or at least has no dialogue.

A few things that are major events in the book are treated as non-events in the movie, for example, the fact that Henry's first time travel was out of the car when his mother died is the very first thing revealed in the movie, when it is something of a breakthrough mental moment for Henry in the book. His relationship with his father and his father's alcoholism suffers similarly, it's mentioned but not dwelled on and ultimately is swept aside.

OK, I don't want this review to just be "Here's what they left out from the book!" I understand that in order to make a movie out of a book you have to take stuff away. My point is more that things seemed cut simply for time sake and not narrative, and as such what ended up happening is that the soul, the essence of the book was removed with it.

On another note, the movie does a terrible job of tracking when things happen and how old the characters are. This wouldn't be so bad except that there's really not a lot of quality makeup work here so there's not a lot to distinguish the way Henry looks for almost 20 years of his life. A touch of gray hair and a need to shave does not make someone look significantly older, regardless of whether he or another character says "you/I look older!" The movie could have used some of that Benjamin Button magic, and perhaps even some titles saying the year and that "Henry is 28, Claire is 20" like in the book.


The Bad and the Beautiful is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. To begin, each character is so perfectly written and performed that only Vincente Minnelli could have been the director. Kirk Douglas as Johnathan Shields was unbelievably excellent. Johnathan felt like a real person and the way Douglas played him the character came to life. Lana Turner was fantastic as Georgia Lorrison. Even in silence, Turner brought something so special to Georgia that no actress would ever be able to bring the character justice again. Turner and Douglas were certainly deserving of an Academy Award for their brilliant acting performances and it is a crime that Turner was completely snubbed. To boot, Minnelli was denied an Oscar nod along with the film as a whole for Best Picture. Gloria Grahme however was honored with an Academy Award for her delightful and refreshingly sanguine portrayal of Rosemary. However, I don't think Grahme was not on the screen more than 10 minutes. Is that really deserving of a prestigious award like an Oscar? Even so, The Bad and the Beautiful is pure excellence and a film that all movie lovers should experience. The drama is intense and every moment that the stars are on screen is magnificence.


Should really have been called, Big Bad and Beautiful, as this is Hollywood movie-making on a grand scale with a big budget, A-list director and a starry cast producing a high quality melodrama centred on the world of movie-making itself. Unusually constructed around three separate lengthy flashbacks of past associates (a director, actress and writer, played by Barry Sullivan, Lana Turner and Dick Powell) of boy-genius Jonathan Shields (a composite, perhaps of David O Selznick and Orson Welles) played with total conviction and no little vigour by an emergent Kirk Douglas, these serve to lay bare, warts and all, his larger than life character by the conclusion, leaving the viewer to decide for themselves whether this golden boy with feet of clay is deserving of our admiration or derision. Of course we're steered in the former direction not only by Douglas's terrific performance but also by the clever concluding scene when Sullivan, Turner and Powell, all with ample reason to have nothing do with him, still find themselves effortlessly drawn into his comeback plans. The film is a celebration of errant genius with an appreciation that such talents are frequently flawed in character and cause casualties along the way. The acting is uniformly excellent even though Douglas' name should really be above Turner's in the titles, given the relative scale of their parts, never mind their performances. Besides the leads mentioned above, Gloria Grahame shines again as the fey Southern belle wife of the unexciting pragmatic writer played by Powell, swept off her feet by a Latin smoothie set up by Shields. Minnelli's direction is effortless, purveying numerous backstage insights on and off-camera. The story itself is highly melodramatic and improbable but nevertheless extremely entertaining and to paraphrase Bette Davis in the near contemporary classic "All About Eve", certainly a movie to strap in tight for, a bumpy ride is had by all.


Vincente Minnelli takes the audience on a tour of the "how to make movies" idea in The Bad and the Beautiful, a heartfelt and poignant story about a ruthless producer trying to get back into the position of successful producer with the help of three people he launched careers for. Unfortunately, they all were tragically affected by him in one way or another, so they all refuse. If anything, this movie shows how quickly your fortune can turn in the movie business. Jonathan Shields, played remarkably by Kirk Douglas, goes from poor, unknown movie producer, to becoming one of the richest and most powerful men in Hollywood. This film reminded me of a sort of mix between Sunset Blvd. and Ace in the Hole, ironically the latter being a film in which Douglas also starred in and playing the same type of character. Taking a rather unflinching look at the inner workings of film making and the consequences that come about from such a lavish lifestyle, Minnelli paints a bleak portrait of the people we think have it all. It may not be as powerful or well made as Sunset Blvd, but it still has a great quality to it that makes it one of the better works of Vincente Minnelli.


Spoiler Alert!! --- Vincente Minnelli's overwrought expose of Hollywood and all its shortcomings. Kirk Douglas is a washed up studio chief who attempts to gather together a group of one-time com-padres to help him with his comeback. He gets them all on the phone at the same time, thus allowing them to tell their horror stories one by one before sticking it to him. Lana Turner is the star Douglas cultivated and then dropped, Dick Powell is the distinguished novelist who becomes a gun-for-hire screen writing hack, Gloria Grahame is Powell's opportunistic wife...and so on. Each story unfolds in gruesome detail, exposing Douglas a heel, a cad, and, possibly, a murderer.

It's silly, glossy and extremely entertaining. Douglas is great, his overacting is perfect for his excitable role and Turner hands in as good a performance as she's ever given (which really isn't saying THAT much). Grahame won an Oscar, but she's not that impressive...and her role is quite small. The dependable supporting cast also includes Barry Sullivan and Walter Pidgeon.


We all love movies. That is why we come here and write our reviews and read other peoples opinions of them. But to make a site like this possible we need to have the finished article on our screens, and these movies are presented in such a way that they seem effortless. Never once are we to imagine that the whole scene is just a set, and the characters on screen are merely paid actors.

The Bad and the Beautiful breaks that mould. For once we are shown the true gritty realism of what goes on behind the cameras. The studio systems, the dodgy and sometimes sleazy wheeler dealing's and the heartbreak and high running passions that go into making a motion picture. In short it is a movie about movie making.

When a Director, an Actress and a Writer are called into the office of movie Mogul Harry Pebbel (Walter Pigeon) they are told that movie producer Jonathan Sheilds has fallen on hard times. He plans to make a come back but requires their combined talents to pull it off.

However all four of them have had extensive dealings with Sheilds in the past and have all vowed never to even talk to him again let alone work with him. Each have their own reasons as each have suffered at Sheilds' hands.

The rest of the picture is told in three individual flashbacks as it is explained just how and why Sheilds deserves such animosity, with Pebbels also explaining just what they all went on to achieve because of him and in spite of him.

The Director is Fred Amiel (Barry Sullivan) who started out as Sheilds' partner when they were a young Producer/Director team finding it hard to land a job. They have a very close friendship and make very low budget 'B' pictures. When the two men finally land a job with Harry Pebbel's studio, their pictures start to acquire success and with that comes the ambition to produce bigger and better projects.

The two decide to take on Amiel's dream project and translate a best selling novel to the screen. Amiel has written a solid screenplay and longs more than anything to direct it. Requiring a big budget and 'A' list stars, the two of them pull out all the stops to get the necessary backing from the studio.

It pays off but in the negotiations Amiel is all but dropped from the project, instead opting for a better known and more experienced Director. Sheilds however rides his ambition and signs on for the project despite the railroading of his best friend, and with Sheilds' star on the rise, the two end their partnership and their friendship on a bitter and acrimonious note.

The Actress is Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), the daughter of one of the early movie stars, who's tortured passed she hides behind a bottle. Despite her drunken exterior, Sheilds who now owns his own production company and studio, sees the potential for a star quality leading lady and signs her on for his next picture.

During the preparation for the picture she falls in love with Sheilds. This coupled with the pressure of her first major role is too much for her, so once again she finds solace in drink which threatens to destroy the project.

As a way of keeping Lorrison on track, Sheilds convinces her that he too is in love, and helps her develop as the actress she undoubtedly is. However when the film is released and Lorrison becomes the new Hollywood sensation, Sheilds drops her like a hot potato, an act made even more callous by the fact he is already with another woman and had probably been so all the time.

The Writer is James Lee Bartlow (Dick Powell) a southern intellectual who's first book has just been published and Sheilds intends to adapt it for the screen. After flying Bartlow and his wife out to Hollywood, Sheilds convinces him to write the screenplay as well.

Bartlow is a happily married man who's home-life has always come first, however Sheilds believes that his wife is interfering with his work, so he engages his dashing leading man 'Goucho' (played by Gilbert Roland) to turn on his Latin charm and seduce the lady away from her husband while the screenplay is finished.

This has tragic results as Goucho and Mrs Bartlow are killed in a plane crash, while running away to Mexico together so she can get a quick divorce and marry her new found Latin lover.

Unaware that it was Sheilds' scheming that resulted in the infidelity and ultimate death of his wife, he finds solace in Sheilds and the two finally become close friends until the truth is finally unearthed.

Kirk Douglas gives what is in my opinion his greatest performance as the selfish and scheming Jonathan Sheilds, especially in the scenes with Lana Turner. His power and emotion was so much deserving of the 1952 Oscar which finally went to Gary Cooper in High Noon.

Although selfish and egotistical, hes not necessarily a bad man. He had his moments of kindness, he genuinely was remorseful over the death of Bartlow's wife and in an earlier scene, he speaks of how he wanted to make a star out of someone Hollywood had thrown onto the Ash pile. A boy who made good, wanting to give something back.

He would lie, cheat, sacrifice and tread on anybody's heels to get his pictures on the screen, but he is not evil through and through, like most cinematic baddies and indeed like some of the real Hollywood producers who were out there at that time.

Yet with all, thanks to Douglas' perfect performance, Jonathan Sheilds is destined to remain one of cinemas most loathsome and despicable characters


A married older man has a fling with a younger woman leading to sex murder, suicide, gossip, cover ups and a lot of other fun stuff in this tv miniseries soap opera. Loosely based on the Bloomingdale scandal and a novel by Dominick Dunne, this movie is a typical trashy made for television fare that has a great cast and is very watchable..especially with DeMornay. a guilty pleasure. 7 of 10


This is my absolute favorite movie. Jason Robards and Rebecca DeMornay give stunning performances. The storyline was exciting, romantic, and clever. It is simply a great movie. Jason Robards really makes the movie. He is so gorgeous and such a talented actor.


Inconvenient Woman is a fabulous miniseries, based on the book by Dominick Dunne. Dunne took the plot partially from the Alfred Bloomingdale scandal. The movie is hot stuff, starring Rebecca de Mornay as Flo, the waitress who attracts the wealthy Jules, played by Jason Robards. Jules and his wife (Jill Eikenberry) are married in name only. Jules falls for Flo and sets her up in grand style.

As the title suggests, Flo becomes inconvenient, particularly after Jules dies suddenly.

The film is peppered with slimeballs, and they're all excellent, including Roddy Macdowell, Chad Lowell, Grant Cramer, and Alex Rocco. DeMornay is perfect casting as Flo. Peter Gallagher is the writer on whom it falls to tell Flo's story, and Chelsea Field is his love interest from a high social station.

An Inconvenient Woman is entertaining, interesting, and sad. I loved it.


Dominick Dunne does UpperCrust Sleaze better than anyone...Next to Dunne, Dynasty looks tinny and Judith Krantz like a social climber. Dunne KNOWS. So you've got a witty script with some fine performances, gorgeous backdrops, and - did anyone notice? - the singer on the soundtrack is Marilyn Monroe. Peter Gallagher handsomely carries the lead, and Joseph Bologna gets another chance to show that he's one of our most underrated actors. Jill Eikenberry chills as the wife of tycoon Jason Robards, and her composure while some characters expire is right out of Stanwyck/Davis territory. But it's Rebecca De Mornay's show, and she's moving and poignant as well as sexy. Paxton Whitehead does his patented snob number, and Elaine Stritch gets a star turn that won her an Emmy. So why isn't this gem of a miniseries on DVD?


Let's admit it. There are movies you see just to look at an actress where she is just more beautiful than she already is. 'Cat on a hot tin roof' is such a movie for Elisabeth Taylor, as is 'Gilda' for Rita Hayworth.

'Un inconvenient woman' is just that kind of star-vehicle for Rebecca De Mornay (a fine actress most people will know as the evil babysitter in 'The hand that rocks the cradle'). It's obvious that director Larry Elikann loves her looks, and constantly lets the camera zoom in on her radiant face, her well-shaped hands with beautiful, (very) long red nails and her magnificent figure in perfect fitting coat and skirts. I don't object, and I bet neither will most other male viewers.

But apart from Rebecca, is this a good movie? No, not really. Firstly, it's been made for television and it's aim seems to please soap-loving people. In fact it's a lush, 'kitchy' two-part miniseries and its sentimentality is almost unbearable. Secondly, the fact that this movie's subject (SPOILER)is a waitress who because of her social status can never achieve anything in a rich men's world, but who has a heart of gold can be enough reason to leave this movie unseen.

It's a miracle that in this kind of movie all the parts are casted perfectly with remarkable performances by Jason Kobards and Jill Eikenberry. Only Roddy McDowell in his role as a gossip journalist is nothing more than a caricature. De Mornay is outstanding as waitress Flo and levels up with Kobards as her rich older lover.

Just because of the great acting abilities by veteran actors in combination with Rebecca De Mornay at her ultra-sexy best I can recommend this entertaining but shallow movie.


This is a wonderful film documenting the effect on girls with mothers in prison. The film is not an educational video and documentaries do not have to be entirely objective. In order to make a really moving documentary, the filmmakers necessarily have to get close to their subjects. These filmmakers did just that, spending months with the girls in Troop 1500 before even turning on a camera. The film follows the lives of seven girls, most in their pre-teens, and their incarcerated mothers. Troop 1500 is a Girl Scout troop in Austin, Texas that offers support to these girls and moms. The film is honest about why the moms are in prison (contrary to the previous review) and the failures of the program, as well as the successes. It is refreshing to see inmates portrayed as more than just one-dimensional bad people; this film shows the effects of incarceration on the children of prisoners.

In addition to just being a really interesting topic, the film is engrossing and entertaining. I thought the soundtrack was great. It's not supposed to be a depressing movie. It's about hope and love and life, and the tone is appropriately serious yet not melodramatic. I had the fortune of seeing this film in a class at UTexas Law School and had a Q&A with two of the social workers involved with the troop. They are very inspiring women who really care about these girls and their relationships with their moms, and have had some great success stories from the program.


I was lucky to see TROOP 1500 in its full feature length version at the Dallas Video Fest. I hear there is a shorter version which will be broadcast on TV. Quite frankly, I have never seen a documentary which is both artistically innovative and radical in its content. The idea of girls interviewing their own mothers in jail is nothing short of GENIUS and I cannot imagine any other filmmakers telling this story with as much wisdom, heart, soul and depth. Ellen Spiro and Karen Bernstein have presented an eye-opening gift to the world, a film which will make it hard to ignore the children of incarcerated mothers. I see every documentary I possibly can, including the big commercial hits like Fahrenheight 911, but TROOP 1500 is BY FAR the best one I can remember. I wish it would be seen in every cineplex in America, but the next best thing is to see it on DVD or television in its shorter form. Highly recommended from someone who is as critical and cynical as anyone. TROOP 1500 is a fierce, urgently attentive work of art.


I saw this film at the Dallas Video Festival, with several girl scouts present. Having never been a girl scout, I had my own pre-conceived notions that it is just for white middle class girls. TROOP 1500 totally turned my thinking around about the girlscouts and about women in prison.

Director does a difficult balancing act and succeeds brilliantly; the girls are both empowered and shown to be vulnerable but they give the viewer hope. Though they are going through the worst trauma, they are strong and we are left feeling that they will succeed. Unfortunately, some of the mothers may not, but the beauty and power of the program portrayed in the film is that the girls destinies are not inextricably linked to their mothers. In addition to the incredible story of the girls and their moms and their unstoppable troop leader, this is a beautiful constructed film with a keen visual sensibilty and seamless editing style.

While the mothers in the film are presented as the flawed characters that they are, we are given the opportunity to relate to them and understand how easy it would be to wind up in their shoes. The film has no easy answers to a complex problem but does a brilliant job at shedding light on the girls who are the real victims of harsh prison sentences.

A MUST SEE FILM for mothers, daughters, filmmakers, prison employees and, of course, girl scouts.


This film is a compelling exploration of the complex relationship between the mother-daughter relationship and the rearing of young women under duress. Set in the context of a unique Girl Scout troop whose mothers are in prison, the film explores the problematic phenomenon of isolated families with creative force. Spiro is a talent cinematographer who gives the girl scouts their own voice by teaching them how to use the tools of production to document their own story. Some of the most touching scenes come from the young women interviewing their mothers about the realities of prison life. Few films of this nature avoid the exploitation that might arise from documenting the troubled lives of those who get little support or recognition in society. Spiro takes great care to negotiate the fine line between representation and serving the community being documented. In addition, the striking images of prison life juxtaposed with girls at play are a powerful reminder of the film's for problematic. This film is definitely a must see.


I saw this film at the South by Southwest Film Festival where I was privileged to hear several of the "subjects" of the film speak. Not only was I impressed with the level of dedication of the filmmaker, but with the incredible virtuosity of the film-making itself. The cinematography evoked the deepest emotional states of the characters and the strange beauty of the harsh prison environment. Filmmakers made an engaging, dramatic and compelling film while also staying sensitive to the subjects. The subjects could easily have been seen as victims, but instead they were empowered to tell their own stories within the framework of the filmmaker's profound storytelling vision. Though this film has many political implications, it is not a "political" film. It steers clear of easy points and summaries and paints a complex portrait of complex characters caught up in a severely flawed legal system that punishes children more than adults. If you can see this film, SEE IT! It is the best documentary I have seen in years. In fact, I recently read that it will be on PBS as part of the Independent Lens series.


Every man should watch this film, it is a Polanski masterpiece. The parts are wonderfully played and the script is menacingly accurate. Why it didn't get greater exposure at the time or since baffles me, particularly as two of the principle characters have since become "famous" , Hugh Grant and Kristan Scott Thomas.

Most men will empathise with the morality or lack of in this confused relationship between an older man obsessed with his sexual object in the form of the stunning French actress, and her adoration for him. The haunting reality is that for so many the lack of depth in a relationship is frightening once the sexual desire diminishes. An awesome film 10 out of 10.


WOW...

This is without doubt one of the most HUMAN films I have ever seen.

A totally gripping and tragic tale of Fools falling in Love... Only to fall out of it again... TRAGICALLY...

I'm a man, who is NOT afraid to admit that he cried at the end of this film... It was THAT moving... And I'm guessing that if you are one that feels... Or has felt... REAL emotion in your life... Then you'll be moved by this movie too... Perhaps to tears.

The performances are excellent... Perfectly portraying the complexities, contradictions and 'perversions'... If one can call it that... Of the Human heart and spirit.

I seriously felt ashamed to be a man!!! And for once, a movie has made me really think what it must have been like to be a woman who is hopelessly in love with a total bast**d!!! I've never seen so many broken, sad and confused characters in one film before... And the interplay between them is moving and captivating...

Be warned however... This is a serious movie about love, lust and obsession. It is VERY dark on the emotional level, and has NO happy endings... A bit like REAL life perhaps...? So, if you are not yet emotionally mature and have not yet had your heart broken... Or have yet to break any hearts yourself (which is where I'm coming from... Yes, I AM ashamed!!!)... Then I don't think this film is for you...

This film is SO far removed from your usual Hollywood bulls**t, in that it depicts REAL Human emotions on a non superficial level... So stay well clear if you're just looking for a movie to chill out to...

You won't chill out to this one... It sucks you in, bleeds you dry and shatters that age old myth that 'Love Conquers All'...

'Cos take it from me... As this film shows... Love is FAR from perfect...

It's NOT a great movie... But given its very moving emotional content and realism on the portrayal of Human Beings...

I give it 9 / 10.


The British Nigel (Hugh Grant) and his wife Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas) are celebrating the seventh anniversary of their marriage in a cruise to Istanbul and Bombay. While in the trip, the American cripple and frustrated writer Oscar (Peter Coyote) gets close to Nigel, and invites him to listen to his unconventional love and hate story with his French wife Mimi (Emmanuelle Seigner). Oscar tells how he met Mimi in Paris and all their relationship, including details of their sexual life, along the past years. Meanwhile, Nigel feels a great attraction for the sexy and gorgeous Mimi, in a story with tragic consequences. `Bitter Moon' has been released in Brazil on DVD this week, and yesterday I watched it for the fifth or sixth time, since it is one of my favorites movies ever. This story, about relationship, moral, hypocrisy, behavior, love and hate, fascinates me and shakes my emotions. I really believe that `Bitter Moon', Peter Coyote and Emmanuelle Seigner have been not nominated to the Oscar because of the problems of Roman Polanski with the American Justice. Emmanuelle Seigner has her best role and performance in his career playing Mimi, an adorable French woman, very much in love with Oscar, who poisons and destroys her. Their love increases, reaches the top and crosses all the boundaries of a sexual relationship, including those `accepted by a moralist and hypocrite society' (represented by Nigel), questioning how long a love can last, making Oscar bored of Mimi. The problem is that their relationship was supported by sex only, without friendship and respect, basic parameters for a long-term everyday life of a married couple. Hugh Grant is perfect in the role of a typical British man and symbol of a hypocrite society. And Kristin Scott Thomas has a minor, but very important part in the plot, playing a sexually repressed woman due to the behavior of her husband, who released the chains of her repression. The wonderful music of Vangelis and a soundtrack of nice songs, which includes a Brazilian pop song, conclude this masterpiece. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): `Lua de Fel' (`Bitter Moon')


This film is utterly compelling - it will have you glued to the screen. It's about 2 hours and 15 minutes long, yet it never loses its grip. Although there are a few "funny" moments, you can never be sure whether they were intentional or not. The pacing is slow but wonderfully methodical. But what really makes this picture delightful is the level of the acting of the male stars. While the female leads are a bit stiff (the film's major flaw), the cynical Coyote and, especially, the charmingly shy Grant (his performance here is underrated) provide two different ways for the viewer to enter the story and their interplay is offbeat and endlessly entertaining. This is methodical, first-rate filmmaking by Polanski.


Bitter Moon once again sees the master of the macabre, Roman Polanski, doing what he does best. With echoes of his earlier film 'Knife in the Water', Bitter Moon is a story of lust, revenge, betrayal, dependency and most of all; love, wrapped tightly around a coil of taboos and sexual perversions. While not as good as some of Polanski's other works, Bitter Moon still stands out as a highlight of his filmography and is certainly a lot better than many people have reputed it to be. The film follows two very different couples on a cruise ship; An English couple, Nigel and Fiona and an American cripple, Oscar, who is married to the French seductress Mimi. After meeting Mimi in the ship's bar, Nigel becomes entranced by her and later meets her husband and proceeds to learn his and wife's story...and it's not exactly pretty. With this movie, Polanski has obliterated the barriers of decency, and sometimes even makes you, the viewer, uncomfortable due to the goings on. And that's the mark of someone that knows how to handle his audience!

The acting in the movie really is first rate and there isn't a weak link there, especially not within the four leads. I'm no fan of Hugh Grant, in fact I hate the man, but he's exactly the right casting choice for this movie and it's almost a shame that he went on to make lots of rubbish movies after it. The two women, played by Kristin Scott Thomas and Emmanuelle Seigner are well done in terms of the characters and the acting, but it is Peter Coyote who steals the show as the abominable Oscar. His character in this film is the sort that actors can really get their teeth into, and Coyote bites down hard in this movie. Polanski's direction is excellent as usual and the gritty style mixed with the great director's edgy camera-work help to create a claustrophobic environment that allows Polanski to perfectly portray his characters' mindset. The themes on display are impressive, and in spite of the fact that it oversteps the mark on several occasions, Polanski's film always feels real and the lesson in the love that the film teaches is duly noted. Bitter Moon is a film that will get under your skin and stay there and not only that but there's enough happening to ensure that this is always a fun watch. Recommended viewing.


The film begins with the camera focused on the sea and the waves, and the music with the piano playing to good effect, then an increasingly enlarging zooming shot of a porthole. Then to the cruise liner where the four main characters are based. It is a story narrated and told by Oscar, played by Peter Coyote, who is wheelchair-bound, to Nigel, played by Hugh Grant, a man he meets on the cruise. Nigel is intrigued by an entwining and serpentine tale Oscar tells him, and so are we, and even though it starts to sound incredulous, he has to return to Oscar's quarters to hear more. The tale is so engrossing because it concerns Oscar's beautiful, sultry and seductive wife, Mimi, played mesmerisingly by Emmanuelle Seigner. Oscar is entranced at first with her and delves into all kinds of sexual games, then his passion for her begins to subside and he rejects her and leaves her alone on a plane. All the while Nigel's wife (Kristin Scott-Thomas) is becoming disillusioned with Nigel's fascination with Mimi and Oscar. I do not want to unveil anymore, just to implore you to watch this film and let it mesmerise you, like it did me. I felt as though I had to keep watching and somehow I did not want to leave and let go of it until the end.


I found this film extremely well done for several reasons I will nominate.

It debates some moral issues, how far is it acceptable for a society still full of consevative people, such as the one performed by Hugh Grant, to acept a relationship such as that of the main characters? It is totally at the border of normality (meaning normality not necessarily what's good but what's common). The film also touches strongly the theme of hipocrisie (probably wrong spelled, this word.) once more in the character of Hugh Grant who, despite showing all the time disgut and repugnace for the story he is being told, is always secretly desiring and wanting something equivalent to happen to him (this hipocratic attitude may be the result of growing up in a world and a society where this kind of sexual liberties and practices are repressed and in here once more we are taken to atrong moral issues which take us to rethink the whole thing...).

Apart from this questions this film makes me also think about the relationships between men and women... Is there an everlasting love? or at least an everlasting relationship?... Suddendly I recalled Schopenhauer who claimed that no man could be happy with only one woman... maybe this film is showing that he was right... the pace of the relationship between Mimi and the writer was so high that they just emptied all there possibilities very soon, but if we put that at the scale of a normal marriage, aren't all the possibilities also tried at the end of 10 20 or 30 years? Can a marriage last happy for both till "death tears them apart" ?...

Besides this few topics of discussion (to which I could add some more if I just remembered them right now) I found this film very well directed with some beautiful scenes... also some strongs scenes that stay with us... Excelent performances for the three leading roles... Kristin Scott Thomas is also good in here but not so as in other films also because her somewhat small part in this one didn't allow her to show more than she did. This film proves once more Roman Polansky as one of the greatest directors of our times, since he shows he is totally in control of every detail of direction (I enjoyed the increase of the speed together with the increase of intensity of the relationship among the couple). Good dialogues but specially excelent speeches of the writer whenever he becomes the narrator which is often... Also an excelent note for the soundtrack by Vangelis and other well known songs which appear along. A must see.


Much has been well described ad nauseum about the plot, music, background, character flaws, etc. of Bitter Moon. Besides all of these truths, there is something else that exists, namely the powerful feminine impact that Mimi portrayed to the extent that it seemed far too real to be left encased in the fantasy realm of movie art. Her character part as well as her actual beauty, dancing talent, and sexuality is the exponent of femininity, grace, and desirability. Men remain tortured by their obsession with everything that Mimi portrayed in the film. Not unlike Jean Seberg in Lilith, whose character mesmerized, beguiled, and commandeered most of those who ran across her path, Mimi had that quality which likewise reaches out beyond the movie itself to ensnare the hearts of all men. Not everyone gets it, but it is plain to see from galleries of fan mail to Emmanuelle Seigner, this one movie part seems to have entrenched her immortality into many men's souls. This gut-wrenching obsession with the magical combination of a certain actress coupled to a script and director brings forth restless insomnia for appreciative men as Seigner has done here. If Jean Seberg did not bring such an obsession, then consider Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. Or try Kim Novack in Bell Book and Candle. These are a few of the magical concoctions of film art where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Oscar's character even tries to elevate the beauty and desirability of the less stunning Fiona's character when he says, "But I find your own brand of beauty more subtle.....as that inimitably British quality......a kind of reticence that hints of untapped potentiality." Even Shakespeare, much less Oscar, cannot compensate with words for those who appear limited in physical beauty and sensuousness, while Seigner's beauty portrays endless potential for being tapped, you might say. And Polanski's product leads to a powerful representation of man's instinct and obsession for beauty, sensuousness, and the ideal everyman's woman. We see that Oscar, when given this rare opportunity in the eyes of the average man, totally blows it and ruins a most ideal relationship. Unfortunately, knowing Polanski's historical tragedies, I would think that he is telling us that we are probably no better than Oscar when it comes to successfully nurturing the ideal relationship. ChazzN


Extremely well made, extremely well acted, extremely intense and disturbing, and extremely conscious of areas of the sexual psyche that I'd never seen so honestly explored in a movie. According to Polanski, it is not love and hate which are opposite, but love and indifference. Obsessive sex gives way, at least between the two lovers of Bitter Moon, to a hatred as savage as cold-blooded murder or all-out war.

These extremities of love and hate work themselves out in a game of power and manipulation, and it remains the only vehicle by which these two can merge with one another so as to lose both their independence and the rest of their inhibitions and illusions. In the end, they become so bound up in their mutual need that the sex itself is no longer central. They might as well be prisoners lashed forever to the same stake, learning actually to enjoy the various torments that the other is able to inflict. Freud thought similarly that all sexual love was ultimately a form of masochism--identification with a partner whom one has caused to suffer. These questions are essential as long as the blood continues to throb in us; and, whether or not we find Polanski's story credible (I do), any thinking person would recognize it as a serious attempt to define who we humans are, both as rutting mammals and as something more.


Stiff British couple on an ocean-liner cruise run into, and is spellbound by an American-French man & wife with a highly unusual past... Director Polanski brilliantly brings us this unforgettable, jet-black and haunting story of love and desire, and the threat of pushing them to obsessive limits- you can almost hear the bells of doom ring as the setting of the ship shifts to beautiful Paris and Coyote's voice-over...

Definitely controversial and unsettling, but it's one of those occasions that you just can't resist (like Grant's character does) following characters that aren't necessarily instantly likable. And therein, Peter Coyote excels in an absolutely devastating performance as the failed writer! Borderlines occasionally into sensationalistic kinkiness, but always recovers... not to mention by featuring one of the best (and saddest) endings I can think of.

9 out of 10 from Ozjeppe


This movie, despite what many reviewers seem to think, is about the differences between men and women with respect to sex and love. Whether it is with Oscar and Mimi's intense, wild, no holds barred relationship, or with boring, bland Nigel and Fiona.

Generally speaking, men can have sex with any amount of women, in any way or intensity. If she is up for it, chances are we will be too. Women on the other hand, require more of an emotional connection to the men they sleep with. The need to develop trust and comfort before completely letting go.

Oscar is the ultimate poon hound and became instantly infatuated with Mimi. They start with a normal passionate relationship, but ultimately, the excitement wears off. This happens in any and every relationship. They hike up the intensity by getting into bondage, S&M, etc. All the while, Oscar is all to aware, they are heading for the their peak and once it hits the top, it is only down hill from there.

The thing is, for the man in this case, it is only about the sexual passion. The woman is truly in love and the sex is the connection to her man. Even when the sexual excitement wears off, Mimi is still in love.

So, enter the conflict. Oscar is done, wants out. Mimi can't handle it and doesn't understand why he could possibly not love her the way she loves him. He tries to be compassionate and break up but she refuses to be let go, ultimate agreeing to be his slave just to stay near him.

This story is being told to a couple who have also been together for 7 years and are off to reignite their marriage. I believe that the same factors are in play with the stuffy British couple, Nigel and Fiona but only in a far more repressed manner. He's bored because he and his wife are doing the "normal" thing. No wild, kinky sex for them. But the emotion of love is there. If a couple is going to stay together forever, they simply have to get over the fact that physical passion is fleeting and if the bond of love is strong on both sides, they can make it work. Nigel isn't clear on this until the climactic ending.

This commentary isn't so much on the details of the plot, but what I believe the movie is trying to get across. Read the other posts for more details, but to understand what the movie is saying, understand that sex is sex for men and sex is love for women.


Roman Polanski really outdid himself in this original film about lust,perversions,love,dependencies,relationships and the evil of man. All shaped and formed in the city of love,Paris.You're flung to and from Paris on to a cruise on open dark waters.The shift and the graphic story send your sealegs a drift.

Hugh Grant ,in his shy studdering act of a prude sexually frustrated Englishman drawn into temptation by the french vamp,is adorable compared to the other characters in the film.

Curiosity killed the cat!

This movie is at times very erotic and then it slides down to real perversity's.

It captures you and doesn't leave you unmarked.


I'd have to wonder how much hotter the book that Bitter Moon is based on is. I'm not sure if I would ever read it, but it definitely wouldn't be boring. Neither is the movie; if anything, Polanski goes to such dark depths here that it's almost neglectful not to say that there's something old-fashioned stirring in the narrative. A British couple on their way via cruise to India run into a wheelchair bound would-be writer and his wife, who is a knock-out, and the husband hears from the now crippled man the story of his relationship. There's something wholesome that is ripped apart in the story here, and it's at its core a tale of passionate love and desire that becomes like a mind-game.

Polanski's flashback narrative works well, and despite some corny bits early on in Oscar's (Peter Cotoye) tale of Mimi (Emmanuele Signer), this is contrasted with scenes that sizzle with great sexuality, the likes of which only so-much seen in 90s cinema. Then it transitions into the 'naughtier' chapter, then going into the section that's most captivating: the 'can't-live-with-em-can't-live-without-em' logic of their relationship, and how it then relates to Hugh Grant's Nigel and his flawed marriage to Fiona (Thomas). Will he sleep with Mimi? This question would be the shallow one; Polanski's achievement here is expressing a savage bond that is like a slow-working poison, ready to affect anyone that grows closer to their very human tragedy. Sometimes seeing their past is disturbing, other times even darkly funny. But it's pure, unadulterated Polanski through and through.

And special note should be given to Coyote: here's a character actor everybody sees from time to time, be it ET or Sphere or Femme Fatale, and this time he's put to a test that any actor would love. He goes through every emotion, sometimes put on and sometimes very raw and wretched bit from his soul, and it's an imperfect but powerful tour-de-force. Everyone else, Grant, Seigner, Thomas, are put in roles that their fit well into (Grant especially as an up-tight yuppie sexually awakened/confused), but Polanski still uses them wisely from scene to scene. His wife, Seigner, is also sometimes a revelation in a role that should- and is- a possible one-note trap. There's complexity that she finds in her needy-cum-sociopathic mindset, and is sexy as all hell. It's overall and underrated work of minor genius, and may please those looking for a crazy tale of love and revenge.


Sexy, dark, funny and smart. One of the best and most underrated films of the 1990's. Why isn't this film on DVD? Sure it's not for everyone, sorry Ben Affleck isn't in this one ... Polanski is a master, fearless, one of the all time great film directors. This film shows why. There's my two cents.


One of Polanski's best films. All players give perhaps career-best performances; certainly Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott-Thomas have never been involved in anything of greater substance ('The English Patient' or no. And Peter Coyote is unsurpassed: weltschmerz has never been portrayed more effectively or intelligently. It is a study of different forms of human love, contemplating the distinction between that of physical desire and attraction, against something more fundamental. Special mention should be made of the theme music which, in my opinion, is Vangelis at his best, working superlatively in the context of the sea voyage setting.

Here is perhaps testament to the notion that the best film can attain something approaching exquisite art: in capturing mere quotidian human experience, evoking something beyond. On paper this is a movie made about an obsessive love affair in early 90's Paris as recounted by one of the protagonists to an emotionally-confused englishman on an ocean voyage. But it seems so much more than the sum of its parts; it transcends and sublimates the premise of the storyline, the experiences of the characters.


Few critics took this film seriously when it was released, but it's now steadily beginning to garner attention. Today it ranks as one of Polanski's best.

"Bitter Moon" is a powerful film about love, and to view it as a sort of a soft-core titillation exercise by Polanski is to miss the point. The up-front sexuality of the film is there, not to merely provoke a cheap arousal from the viewer, but to point out how empty and hollow the couple's relationship really is. Most men will empathise with the morality (or lack of) in this confused relationship between an older man obsessed with his sexual object, and her adoration for him. The haunting reality is that for so many, the lack of depth in a relationship is frightening once the sexual desire diminishes.

9/10 - Filed with lush cinematography and romantic Parisian architecture, the film's only flaw is its Hugh Grant subplot. Everything else is electric, with a warped sense of playfulness that only Polanski can deliver. Worth several viewings.

Note: Peter Coyote's room number, 5A, is the same as Tom Cruise's apartment from "Eyes Wide Shut". Both films have similar themes. When "Eyes Wide Shut" was released, Polanski made "The Ninth Gate", a film which features an "Eyes Wide Shut" styled ritual. Both films are similar in tone.


A memory film that is quite forgettable. Untalented American writer living the ultimate petty-bourgeois life in Paris, and who thinks he's Hemingway, falls in love at first sight with a young French woman while riding on a bus.He gives her his ticket and leaves the bus. He then looks all over for her--I thought writers write?-- and finally finds her waiting tables in a restaurant. He takes her to dinner. They fall in love. They make love. Then they begin to have kinky sex. Then she becomes a dominatrix and he becomes her willing slave. They dabble in fantasy/bestiality via a pig mask. The untalented writer begins to lose interest in her. Now he becomes a sadist and she becomes a martyred masochist. He tells her he's carrying his child. She aborts the pregnancy. He tells her lets go someplace far away. They get on a plane bound fro Martinique. He leaves the plane before it takes off and he abandons her. He then begins to live the life of a playboy--maybe if he had to work for a living he'd be a better writer--and "makes up for lost time." He is hit by a car. Then he is visited in the hospital by his former whipping post, she knocks him out of bed and he becomes paralyzed from the waist down. Now she becomes his sadist/nurse/wife and he becomes a martry. I'd go on but I think I'm making my point.

Prententious garbage. Not a comedy, not a drama, not black comedy, certainly not tragedy, not parody. Just an insult to any intelligent movie goer. And by by the end of the film, Peter Coyote began to resemble Wyle E. Coyote.


I can't believe someone posted about this film being excessive as it is about excess; this movie is simply awful, over-rated and badly directed. Last tango in Paris is excessive, Cronenberg is excessive, even some other Polanski movies are excessive and thought-provoking and -yes!- exciting; but this one has no storyline, no character development, no excitement and terrible acting: you can surely find better ways to waste your time.


Film viewers may not consider Bitter Moon a great movie, but for me it's one of Roman Polanski's most enjoyable movies. It's a very eclectic movie, grabbing something from many genres at the same time - comedy, thriller, romance, drama - and molding them into a tightly-plotted, plausible story.

Hugh Grant (in arguably the only serious role of his career) and Kristin Scott Thomas play a Nigel and Fiona, a British couple travelling aboard a cruise ship to India. They're a couple with difficulties and hope that the holiday will spice up their life a bit.

But they have the unfortunate luck of meeting Oscar and Mimi, an awkward couple. The temptress Mimi flirts with Nigel, much to Fiona's disgust. And the wheelchair-bound Oscar sees in Nigel the perfect listener to his life story.

Much of the movie's narrative involves Oscar, a failed American writer, telling Nigel how he met Mimi in Paris and how they became caught in a love-hate sexual relationship of escalating sexuality, perversion, and viciousness. It's a story that plumbs the depths of human depravity, man's ability to inflict pain on others; but at the same time it's about the thing that makes life worth living: love.

Oscar's narrative reveals the lives of two people completely exhausted by their lust until their desire turns to hatred and hatred to pleasure in hurting each other. When Oscar gets tired of Mimi, he tries to get rid of her, pregnant and without means. Her revenge, taking advantage of an accident that cripples him, is just as cruel. And in this game of cruelty it becomes obvious these two have no one else but each other. Love has never been more paradoxical.

Peter Coyote and Emmanuelle Seigner dominate this movie. Coyote especially plays his ruthless character without any self-pity, without justifications, and yet still manages to instill a great deal of humanity in him.

Visually speaking, Bitter Moon is not the masterwork that was Tess or Chinatown. It's a more conventional movie - technically speaking anyway; no mainstream movie would go near the subject matter of this movie - that tells an extraordinary story in very simple terms. I wouldn't call that bad, but Polanski can do better. But in terms of exposing the dark soul of man, it's vintage Polanski.


Bitter Moon manages to tantalise and tease us without ever coming across as explicit nor exploitative. Its study of relationships, and one relationship in particular, manages to cover some pretty far-reaching ground and comes complete with a lot of different sorts of content; but the film always keeps its eye on how these instances, and the nature of the relationship, shape the persons engaging. If we are excited, we are to be excited at the film-making skills of a certain Roman Polanski and how he unfolds this narrative, and not at what these people go through in order to become the people we see on screen.

In the broader sense of things, Bitter Moon is a really straight forward tale of two people meeting one other; getting to know one another and advancing things further and further to the point that they become sick of the sight of one other. But it is this premise stretched out to a time that most other directors would have a hard time keeping to in maintaining both audience interest and study. It is this premise that is actually used as a platform of greater things, something that allows a certain fascination in third parties initially unaware, but also gets across a certain sense of well-being. It feels as if Polanksi, through the characters of Nigel (Grant) and Fiona (Scott Thomas) whom have been happily married for so long, is trying to say that you should be thankful for what you've got and going bigger and better because your impulses demand you do, isn't always necessary.

Power play seems to be a primary ingredient in Bitter Moon; in what is an interesting concoction of romance, tragedy, noir and some scenes of both sheer horror and terror. The film is narrated from the confines of a cruise ship in the Mediterranean, bound for Turkey, by an American paraplegic named Oscar (Coyote). Whatever beginnings of being in control of a situation or a person seems to stem from his conversations with Hugh Grant's Nigel. Over time, Nigel will become more and more intrigued by what it is Oscar has to say about a certain carefree dancer on the boat named Mimi (Seigner), who is linked to Oscar in more ways than is first apparent.

But it isn't just this acquaintance as a relationship that Bitter Moon touches on, it breaks away from its primary strand of two people going through a love-fuelled grinder of friendship and fondness by providing us with enough material revolving around Nigel and Fiona's marriage which is threatened by the presence of Oscar and Mimi. It also looks at the notion of temptation, and a notion that one can become more and more intrigued about something as they spend time away from it, but hear, by way of word of mouth, as much as possible about said item. This is most apparent when Nigel spends more time with Oscar and hears of his deconstructing of Mimi as he delves into the past.

Mimi and Oscar's relationship encompasses most things; from BDSM to urolagnia and right the on way through to the notion of knowing your once female lover, now full time carer, is in the room next door with another man; keeping you in a sort of cuckolded state of helplessness. But rather than demonise these interests, fetishes or notions; Bitter Moon gets across a state of wrong-doing, a sense that the repercussions of these activities when used despairingly can bring about ill-fated results, confusion and can form cracks within the relationship.

If the audience are placed within the body of Nigel as this relatively clean-cut and seemingly perfectly innocent individual, then it is for the purpose of hearing Oscar's story unfold. About a quarter of the way through the piece, Mimi herself tells us, or Nigel, that Oscar is prone to making things up half the time anyway. Our minds are wary when we think back to an early chapter in their story when Oscar and Mimi bask in front of a glowing log fire whilst inhabiting an apartment in Paris, one that encompasses a perfect view of the Eiffel Tower as it stands there, not so far away in that you cannot see it, but not directly on it's front door step.

That's not to say anything else Oscar says in untrue; in every sense of the term, we are sucked into his world; his world that he used to be the boss of; his world in which he was the writer, the creator and the would-be brains behind everything. His world, in which he would submit to the presence of Mimi purely to feed a curiosity and because he was able to, but would later find himself on the other foot when she submits to him; his world, in which ego driven positions of power were exploited and the phrase 'what goes around, comes around' didn't exist  not least, until now. The film is an interesting piece, an intimate character and scenario study unfolding within the intimate and closed in space of a boat and its cabins, just as the new year beckons and new chapters threaten to begin just as ominously as they threaten to end.


I wish i could say this was a great Hugh Grant Movie, but I would be lying. Sure he plays a great part here, and it is interesting that Kirsten Scott Thomas is along as his wife Fiona. Now I understand why she was in love with him in Four Weddings and a Funeral in which she also played Fiona :-), but Polanski created a film for Peter Coyote and Emmanuelle Seigner (The Ninth Gate).

Cyote is just about the most sleazy person you can imagine as he goes about using and abusing Seigner until she is reduced to nothing, She is willing to do anything to remain with him. Why? That is a good question and what I see as the whole point here. Why remain in a relationship where there was never any love in the first place and there is clearly no love now? Wht degrade yourself to "do anything" to stay together? The degradation continues when they meet Grant and Thomas on a cruise and Grant is panting to get a chance with Seigner. Who wouldn't. But there is a very funny twist at the end before tragedy strikes.

Makes you really look at relationships in a new light.


The ever underrated Polanski and one of his most underrated and overlooked films. Many have cited as possible reasons the director's difficulties with the US authorities but equally it must be said this is difficult territory. It would be convenient to consider the narrator and his wife to be a couple who simply took their sex games too far and then got their inevitable comeuppance. What we are forced to participate in here, however, is the very ebb and flow of love and lust between two people not afraid to let their passions take them to the edge and even over. The moral of this tale is not that men are evil bastards and women cruelly treated but that we all have those dominant and submissive elements within us that we can use for fun or for real. In the early stages Oscar revels in playing the humiliated one, later the tables turn and finally turn again. Everybody has been known to take a sexually orientated or humorously intended remark or game too far and can surely recognise the elements displayed here even if they are written rather larger than we are used to. A passionate, moving and insightful film.


Polanski and his house writer Brach bring you the story of a couple (Grant and Thomas) that are celebrating their anniversary on a cruise to Turkey. On the boat they meet a beautiful woman (Grant's character immediately falls for her) and her crippled husband Oscar. The husband (Coyote) offers Nigel the chance to sleep with his wife Mimi (Seigner)but first he must listen to his entire story regarding his relationship with Mimi. The biggest part of the movie is one big flash back were you get to see how Oscar (an unsuccessful writer) meets Mimi (a waitress/ dancer) one day in Paris. They immediately fall for each other and they develop a very passionate but perverse sexual relationship. When Oscar realizes after a while that their relationship has reached the point of no return he tries to break it up. Mimi is obsessed with Oscar and she doesn't want to leave him. Oscar endures her presence but he makes her life so miserable (humiliaton, beating,...)in the hope that she will leave him. When this doesn't work he tricks her into getting on a plain and sending her of to another destination. He continues his sweet bachelor life in Paris until one day he gets hit by a car. None of his one night stands come to visit him in the hospital and one day Mimi walks in. He immediately realizes that she is the only one that can help him and now she's in control... Polanski and Brach once again bring you an excellent thriller.


This film starts off a bit odd but moves on with good speed showing two peoples different lives combining into a rather sordid twisted sexual fetish. But the film provides a sweet exit from lives troubles for a short while. But it is well worth watching.


Can a movie get any better than that? I don't think so. Polanski's masterpiece is a statement about how love has no limits and how people are guided by their sexual instincts even if they don't admit it. The film is absolutely perfectly cast and Peter Coyote deserved an oscar. A really beautifully twisted story with unforgettable performances.

10.


I saw this on television recently. I remember when I saw it first in the early nineties that it got bad reviews at the time. I think the critics just had it in for Polanski. 'Frantic' was dismissed as a poor man's Hitchcock, though I thought it was a pretty good stab at doing a Hitchcock, suspenseful enough.

A devastating chronicle of the disintegration of a relationship. Though the role reversal development was done better in Bunuel's Tristana, I thought.

I was struck at the time by Hugh Grant's hilarious portrayal of the twit of an Englishman. This was an act that soon palled over the decade, however.


One of my favorite movies, it is perfect for the romantic who has been disillusioned. This is what happens if love is taken to the extreme. It goes from perfect love to perfect hate, and you will always remember this movie. Watch it, it's definitely worth the time.


This film shows exactly what don't like in Hollywood ;the real nature of sexual relationships ,that's the reason why a superb film like this never will won an Oscar.It shows the extreme passion that everybody can feel about somebody ;your life could be like one of the characters of the film , you only has to meet somebody really special , and ,If you think you never would do the things the characters of this film made ,you will instantly change your opinion , why?, because when you are absolutely in love with somebody , you would anything for that person that make you feel so good...That is the human nature. Other great true this film shows is the sad side that everybody has ;when you know you can do what you want with somebody ,you do it...This means that you make suffer that person (that has fall in love with you), only for pleasure...that is how the mankind is.


I found this movie to be incredible! I found the very adult relationship to be extremely intense. I was completely interested in the story that was being told on the film. It's very rare that you find a movie that truly touches the depths of human relationships, this was one of those movies.

Incredible! I'll give it the perfect 10 rating.


If this movie had the actors or atmosphere of Blue Velvet, it would have been great. The acting was unbelievable, the atmosphere was like Love Boat and I could've cared less about all of the actors. Polanski's wife was annoying rather than seductive, and how could you break a leg getting hit by a truck and become a paraplegic falling out of bed? Even worse, he seems unphased by losing his ability to walk. Their punk rock phase was laughable. Shall I go on? It certainly is no Chinatown!


An truly outstanding, compulsive drama based on a true story concerning charismatic would-be poet Peter Coyote (in a career best performance) and his manipulation of just about everyone he comes into contact with, eventually leading to murder. This is a fascinating, intriguing telling of a rather bizarre murder case with not only Coyote on top form, but also matched by Robert Loggia as his exceedingly odd, certainly unhinged partner-in-crime. Just watch those final moments in the court-room as he completely loses it and incriminates himself. Wonderful stuff! There are also some very fine supporting performances, not least Peter Boyle's turn as one of the investigating detectives.

This is really what made for TV movies do best and I would recommend this without hesitation. Once you begin watching, you'll be hooked!


I saw this movie a year ago but it left an impact on me. This is a horrible tragedy to have occurred. What that creature did to that family is too disgusting for words to describe. The movie itself had a great cast and it was well acted but the content was very disturbing.The movie leaves the viewer with so many unanswered questions. What really happened on that night when three innocent lives were taken? What was running through Susan's mind if it was William who did the actual killing? Forsome reason she trusted him greatly...but why? What kind ofrelationship did they have? What kind of power did he have over her? Susan was an educated woman but obviously very insecure and head over heels in love.Susan and her children did not deserve to die. William died in prison in 1998 and took all his secrets with him. I read that inmates attacked him, to try to get him to tell where the bodies of the kids were and he denied knowing anything.


This really was a wonderful movie. I was just a child when all this was going on and don't remember the newscasts about it. Later, I watched it with my Mom and she told me she knew some of the people involved. The things that William Bradley did were awful, but it is a true story and people are sometimes evil, without a reason for it. As far as anyone claiming this story and movie are made up, I suggest you look up Main Line Murders on thecrimelibrary.com. The entire true events of this movie are on the website I just listed. Also, if you want more information about other crimes this website is the most reliable and the best resource I have found for doing research on becoming a Forensic Psychologist.


I remember seeing this when it debuted on TV (well, the first part at least) and finally got to catch up with it again. This is an epic miniseries (a 2 nighter) about English teacher William Bradfield (Peter Coyote) who is suspected of murdering his fellow teacher/secret lover Susan Reinart (Stockard Channing) and her two children. Policemen Joe Van Nort (Peter Boyle) and Jack Holtz (Gary Cole) spend nearly 6 years trying to get info on the guy. Based on the true crime novel by former cop Joseph Wambaugh (THE NEW CENTURIONS, THE ONION FIELD), this one really packs a punch with the multiple twists and turns. Coyote is excellent as the eccentric Bradfield. One has to wonder how so many people could fall under this guy's spell in real life, but Coyote gives a performance with such conviction that you begin to see why. The supporting cast, which also includes Treat Williams and Robert Loggia, is great with Gary Cole giving a really good performance.


Yet another DVD I picked up at the local supermarket while searching through the bargain bin. It looked interesting, so I decided to invest 99 pence and settled for 171 minutes of crime drama, divided into two parts (UK version).

Well, what's there to say - the first part wasn't overly exciting to watch: The acting wasn't that good, the actors appeared pale in their appearance and performance, and I did expect a bit more true-crime excitement. It's not actually bad or anything - just it's not really good either. There are, however, a few highlights that amused me in this one: First of all Peter Boyle as Sgt. Joe Van Nort - he has a really good screen presence and simply brings something to this film - or any film, for that matter. Then there's the fact that this is a movie from a time long forgotten - a time when smoking cigarettes on screen was accepted and normal, when the PC brigade wasn't around and you could light up whenever and wherever you wanted - these guys go through pack after pack - in the car, in the office (god forbid..), and Boyle even lights up while his colleagues are having lunch right next to him.

The other thing that got me was something you could well call a "running joke" - quite a few times will you see the words "6 Months Later" on the screen - I know that this is probably meant in relation to the real case, and to make things authentic, but the viewer kind of expects these words every time a police building fills the screen while the camera doesn't move - and his expectations won't be disappointed.

The second part of the DVD picks up a little bit, but it still didn't draw me into it as much as I wished it had - Peter Coyote just appears that little bit too obvious and over-the-top in his role of the manipulating killer, and the whole connection between him and Jay Smith (Robert Loggia) never really got clear to me - yes, they were working together, but why did Loggia only have a few screen minutes if he's so essential to the plot? Nevermind - Cindy Pickett was definitely good in this one, and I would even say she was the best of all the cast as far as on-screen performance is concerned (with Boyle coming a very close second).

Over all, I was a bit disappointed with this one, but I didn't regret spending 99p on it - if you're ever at the dentist and have to wait for 171 minutes, pop this one into your portable DVD player or Laptop and enjoy a very average true crime drama - it won't be as bad as having your teeth pulled out, I promise...


I live in the town and attended the school where this took place around the time when it occurred. the frame work of the story is true, and the names of the people are true, but little else is true. Upper Merion is not on the Main Line, we did not go to school in a Gothic cathedral. Many of the people portrayed in the story are portrayed poorly and maliciously. These events permanently have harmed them, and this movie has not helped. These events did occur and affected the school and the people involved. However, this does not reflect the real stories behind the people and the school.

This is a fine movie for entertainment value, but please do not believe everything portrayed in it.


San Demetrio, London tells a simple story in a plain way. A merchant vessel from England sails to Galveston, picks up a cargo of oil and on the way back across the Atlantic is attacked. The crew abandon ship and later some of them re-board her and take her back home.

It is an inspiring story because it tells of ordinary people getting on with the job that, due to a world war, has to be done. These are modest heroes. Problems that come their way are solved unfussily. No one expects medals, they just get on with it. Being a war film the characters are the usual cross section of society united by the common peril. In the cold and the darkness they do their duty. You feel these are real people, not just actors.

This is not a spectacular film. The director does not go for high drama or self conscious acting. There is a death scene which is powerful in its understatement. The narrative is straight forward but exerts a gentle grip. You want to know what happens in the end. This is definitely an under rated film


A very well made (especially for the period) war film. Though i'm not really gonna talk about how the film was made, other than it isn't flashy or fancy, just does a good job of telling a wonderful story. Based on the true story of how a Merchant Navy petrol tanker was abandoned and then re-boarded by some of her own crew.

Also this is one of very few war films about the Merchant Navy (which suffered higher casualty and fatality rates than all the armed services), but it equally could be in peace time as only at the very start do you see Germans. Maybe thats why so few films were made about the Merchant Navy, whats a war film without some nasty Nazis in armbands with submachine guns running about and a few achtung minen signposts?

Quite possibly the best thing I can say about this film is that after seeing this as a kid I wanted to join the Merchant Navy, and I did, and I'm training to be an Engineer Officer, as these film clearly shows engineers are brilliant and deckies useless.

Engineers - 1, Deckies - 0.

Paul.


As I write only 90 people have rated this film which suggests very few have seen it. That is a shame. It is however a difficult film to "sell" to a modern audience so used to fast-paced action, fireballs, gore and the odd bit of gratuitous nudity. This is understated in almost every way with true heroism treated as "just get on with it chaps." Made in 1943 it clearly has a 'propaganda' element to it, ordinary British (plus one American) merchant seamen facing terrible adversity and just getting on with the job. Not a hint of melodrama in sight. In one scene having re-boarded their crippled ship, the men have to decide whether to return to N. America (safer but against prevailing winds) or try to make it home but face further possible German attacks. They take a vote! A cool, calm measured vote at that. Having laid out the possible flaws in this film I would still urge anyone to watch it. It is not a wartime epic, it is a very good film.


San Demetrio, London gives an interesting account of a British Oil Tanker which was attacked and abandoned by her crew, only to find the ship stayed afloat. Good performances and an interesting perspective, as the film was released during WW2.


I never heard anything about this movie. I saw that this was playing at my local dollar theater and was intrigued. It was a fast paced, gore-fest with an eerie atmosphere that I enjoyed. Its sad that this wasn't marketed because it felt better that most straight to DVD horror out there (Even Horror That Gets Released At The Theater) The story revolves around a few men appointed to find these mysterious objects. These mysterious objects give these men immortality but they need human blood to prolong the effects. If you like zombie films with a bit more of character development and more of a plot, then this film doesn't disappoint.


Not sure how a filmmaker as prolific as Joel "Lost Boys" Schumacher could make his return, in essence, to the vampire horror subgenre only to find his finished product, "Blood Creek," tossed into second-run theaters in a handful of locations with virtually no heads up to the popluace. (As of this writing, the IMDb listing is still "Town Creek," and not "Blood Creek.") Lionsgate apparently thought they had a marketing nightmare on their hands... which may indeed be the case.

This imperfect yet original thriller deals with such batshit insane subject matter as undead Nazis, demonic horses, Viking runestones, suits of bone armor, human sacrifice, and the beginning of an occult war that Germany began back in the 1930s. So okay, perhaps it's easy to see, at least on the surface, why this might have been a hard sell. It's just too bad most horror fans won't get a chance to see this one-of-a-kind original in the wake of so many remakes, reboots, and sequels. At least somebody had their thinking cap on when conceiving this thing... or at the very least were taking some heavy duty crazy pills. I mean, did I mention that a Nazi "vampire" (for lack of a better word) possesses a horse that nearly kills our protagonists like some kind of man-eating beast? Or that he later hammers a hole in his forehead before tearing off his face and growing a third eye? WTF?!

True, "Blood Creek" isn't for everyone, which probably explains why it will find its audience primarily on the DVD circuit even had its release not been as top secret as Germany's occult activities during WWII. The concept is so insane, so bereft of screaming teenagers, so utterly lacking in irony despite the absolute insanity splashed upon the screen, it's bound to turn a lot of viewers off. To make matters worse, a tedious black and white prologue complete with unnecessary voice-over stains the beginning of the film, hinting too much at the later goings-on when it would have been more fun to learn the truth as the film surges forward. This seems like a studio afterthought, tacked on gracelessly before an otherwise inspired and fast-moving siege flick.

If you want a fresh take on "vampires" and aren't yet tired of evil Germans circa 2009, this promotionless horror flick should fit the bill despite its issues. Once the pace kicks up, it never relents, and the mythology it creates is interesting albeit completely daft. What's here certainly falls into the "Night of the Living Dead" formula (a house under siege by supernatural forces), but with an off-the-reservation twist. Check it out... if you can find it.


Though I know Schumacher is an established and good director, it's still hard to forgive him for practically ruining the Batman franchise. Town Creek is definitely a good redemption piece.

I will admit, the first 40 minutes of the 90 total minutes had my head spinning at what this is all about. It didn't help that the original title was Blood Creek then changed to Town Creek. I definitely agreed with the "blood" part of the first name, but was/still am confused on the "creek" and "town" words. Sure, there's a creek involved, for all-but 56 seconds, but as far as I remember, there isn't much of a "town;" the overwhelming majority takes place on a farm.

At any rate, the movie begins to unravel and it quickly becomes clear on what this movie's about. And, frankly, it's not that bad at all.

The movie begins more than half a century ago with the Nazi's mission to locate the occult and its items of witchcraft located inWest Virginia, USA. (Really? Uh, okay, then.) An officer's willing to pay top dollar ($150! Fine, today would probably be over a thousand) weekly for the search on their land. They reluctantly agree and he finds what he's looking for quite quickly. The power (literally) goes to his head and, now, let's fast forward to the present Brothers reunite after one went missing for two years, and older brother, Victor (Purcell) leads his younger sibling, Evan (Cavill) to a sectioned off/private farmland to shoot up the inhabitants. Other than loyalty to his brother, paramedic Evan really shouldn't be involved in such cold-hearted murders, but, alas, he goes, attempts this and with his inner-conflicts, he botches a lot of Victor wants to achieve: the deaths of the entire family living on this farm. But, he's also looking for a "him" also living there.

It's quickly apparent the family's equally afraid of the "man" living on their property, and once released from their makeshift prison, all literal hell breaks loose.

Not too hard to place two and two together to discover both who the evil "man" is as it is the family living at the estate, but that's besides the many points/plot twists the movie brings up.

It turns out the man can't enter the house where Evan, Victor and what's remaining of the family is hiding out due to symbols they've painted on the windows/doors. But, the "man" can kill mammals and send them in to get the blood he needs to "advance to the next stage." Quite frankly, I've given away a lot of the surprises in this feature, but I assure you, as I stop here in the plot synopsis section of my review, there's so much more to the storyline. As is there are other good qualities to the movie.

Like I said, Schumacher is an established director; he knows how to build suspense, creativity and make a movie. This is a well crafted film and does have surprisingly good acting on all fronts. And though the plot (or I should say, the second portion of the movie) isn't the most original (SEE: Tales from the Crypt Presents Demon Knight) it's still entertaining and recommended for horror buffs.

Just do what I did, brave through the first 40 or so minutes and let the pieces fall into place and have fun.


BLOOD CREEK (aka TOWN CREEK) is pretty much a mess of a movie - in more ways than expected. But at least this very minor effort by Joel Schumacher continues his tradition of introducing fine lads to the screen in hopes of launching a career (Colin Farrell in TIGERLAND is a typical example). The story/screenplay by David Kajganich tries very hard to be substantial (Viking runes were left in about eight farms and the Nazi's preoccupation with the occult made them spend years tacking them down - the runes being a means toward immortality if you drink the right blood yada yada yada...), but in the end this is just another of the genre as SAW 1 - 6(?), Seven, Silence of the Lambs, Halloween 1 - 5, etc. If lots of blood and crazy behavior on a farm in dark territory inhabited by ageless creatures under the spell of a crazy guy is what rocks your boat, then welcome aboard.

The redeeming factor in the movie is the presence of Henry Cavill (of the Tudor series fame and fine actor waiting to be used in some choice roles) and Dominic Purcell. As brothers bent on vengeance they make the most of this plot, giving it as much dignity as could be expected. They deserve better material as they are both fine actors and personalities. So Joel Schumacher can't really be run out of town for this movie - he at least gave the two primary actors the chance for screen time. Only or those who love gore.

Grady Harp


For the third time this year comes a movie that on paper sounds like good ol' fashioned campy Nazi fun, and then turns out to be something quite a bit different than its premise, turning it in directions it really doesn't need to go. This one comes way of Joel Schumacher, the world's most uneven and undependable filmmaker, and this is probably the film that reflects that the most: uneven, undependable. There's a good idea and a good story here, but instead Schumacher actually goes the Uwe Boll route (and you'd think he'd know better...) and just add things that don't make sense. Like dialog about Iraq. And voice-over narration. That repeats itself.

It takes a good twenty minutes before anything that happens really becomes clear. First we get a completely unnecessary prologue of the Nazi coming to a German immigrant farmhouse in the US that seems more like a chance for Schumacher to play around with Sin City-like neo-noir lighting and extreme contrast black-and-white effect. This prologue would help immensely for the understanding of what happens in the rest of the movie if it weren't for the fact that it's all explained later, again, by dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. Then we get this completely unnecessary transition where our hero, a physician, is somehow involved with some violent bloody something or another that involves a man dying of blood-lose and some woman wigging out. What this has to do with the story is establish that he's a physician. Which he then explains later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. THEN we get this bitter argument between our hero the physician and his father over his brother, who has been missing for two years, and how much his father appreciates the brother more for going to Iraq and being a hero. Which is explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion.

Finally in the middle of a completely unnecessary dream sequence that explains the brother's disappearance (something that's explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion), brother guy returns and drags physician boy off to the middle of the woods to some farmhouse populated by weird people, and they go around busting stuff up and threatening the people's lives and yelling at each other and what the heck is going on? At roughly this point the movie finally becomes interesting in a "What is happening here, and who is the badguy, and what was done?" sort of way until it finally gets established that the farm people are the never-aging caretakers of the Nazi necromancer from scene one, who have been keeping him from breaking out into the world and becoming more powerful than we can possibly imagine, only tonight, on a lunar eclipse, he is going to make one last bid to take over the world. FINALLY. I knew this movie was going somewhere!

And from there it's some pretty decent action horror, albeit tone deaf. If there's anything going for this movie, it is that the action is relentless and very few characters really get a moment to breathe. Otherwise it's hard to really differentiate when we're supposed to be scared, excited, thrilled, or really feel much of anything because nothing really slows down long enough to build a sense of tension or drama in the scenes. One scene becomes another in rapid succession and it's pretty easy to let the movie charge ahead at its own expense while deciding not to really care yourself. Meanwhile the dialog is absolutely ridiculous and gratuitous, all of this "Our father loved you more!" "You don't know what happened to me in Iraq!" "You don't understand what it's like being held in thrall by a Nazi necromancer!" "Who's the real victim here!" type of stuff that would be poignant character development in a slow-building drama where characters finally let themselves go over a cup of tea or something, but is absurd to be shouting at each other while being chased down by a 100 year old guy with a face he keeps peeling off and an eye growing out of his forehead.

It's not often this happens, but, this movie should be remade immediately. There are some really nice ideas that could make for a very entertaining and interesting movie if you cut the Iraq stuff, the Nazi stuff, the family drama stuff, and actually let some mystery and suspense build by getting characters to discover things instead of have everything explained to you in flat, wooden dialog. Worse is when, at the end, a bit of voice-over repeats what a character stated less than a minute before hand, showing indeed one of those pesky and annoying horror movie motifs where apparently the director or producer or maybe the studio or something decided that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to get the point (plus, it leads the way to a possible sequel, which is predictable). Honestly, it's a conceptual misfire. Somebody should grab this idea and, with a bit more creativity and an actual plot structure, make a good movie out of it.

--PolarisDiB


This movie was hands down the worst I have seen from director Joel Schumacher.

I actually really like some of his films but was surprised (in a bad way) of this one. The characters don't develop throughout the movie and the Plot was just infantile.

Dialogue was too simple and the occasional German did not fit in with the movie nor with the characters.

For the horror fans out there, I would recommend you see Night of the Living Dead (1990). Plotwise similar but much more original. And if you want some Nazi bad guy story just watch Indiana Jones.


The movie starts with Gaby (Charlotte Rampling) driving, and she nearly runs over a man who was crossing the street. They exchange some words, but seem to take a liking to each other.

She meets up with Bert, a police superintendent; they're both dressed in formalwear. He stops at a crime scene that is particularly seedy. A dingy apartment, with a partially clothed dead woman in a bathtub full of water. The police on the scene think it was a suicide, but Bert points out it had to have been a murder. This death has no connection (that I'm aware of) to anything else in the movie, except to set the stage for the seediness to follow.

Bert and Gaby proceed to the opera, for which he has a great liking (along with white dresses). In the opera, the female lead playing Eurydice wears a sparkly white dress with lights beneath the cloth forming a large blinking red heart. Bert is absolutely captivated by the dress.

Bert insists on meeting the designer of the dress backstage, and it turns out to be Chris, the man Gaby almost ran over. Gaby and Chris become even more smitten with each other.

Bert persuades Chris to let him borrow the dress for a special friend. Chris goes along on the provision that he gets to do the dressing and undressing, thinking the friend is Gaby. Bert takes him to a well-hidden underground opera S&M club, populated by wealthy men and quite a lot of transsexuals. Performers lip-synch to opera songs. Gaby is not there, but Bert's love Pepper. A death occurs, and although Chris is innocent of it, it looks like the blame will fall on him, particularly when Bert forces Chris to make repeat visits to the club. Meanwhile, Chris and Gaby try to strengthen their relationship, which Gaby finds hard to do.

It was a pretty good movie, well-made. I'm sure the transsexual club limits its appeal, and be forewarned that there is some full-frontal male/female nudity - yikes....


I was given some old videos and this Mascara was with them, i just put It on and really enjoyed the whole Drag and Transvestite theme, with The Lovely Eva Robin's as Peppa.... watch and enjoy something a little Different from the normal every day films.

I didn't expect to see such good actors as Michael Sarrazin and Charlotte Rampling in a movie of this theme but they play the parts very well and convincingly.

For me Eva Robin's portrayal of Peppa was touching and I felt great sorrow for the character and found her strangely intriguing.

Murder mystery and a Love story with a different theme what more could you ask for?

I would say give it a chance and you will enjoy, but if you don't like the drag and transvestite theme then steer well away.


Colosseum: A Gladiator's Story is a good docudrama and most likely was created primarily for use in the high school or college classroom or to be broadcast on either public television or the History Channel. (It might be helpful to know that it doesn't show intense violence but does suggest it; it also makes clear that gladiators, like modern-day athletes and rock stars, had their share of groupies.) The other fellow who provided a review seems more than a little confused about the general intent of the production. In no way was it ever meant to compete against major feature movies and should not be purchased by someone hoping to see a gladiatorial movie comparable to Gladiator. In a nutshell, it tells the story of two gladiators, using some very basic story-telling techniques to accomplish its goals. First, rather than taking a straight-forward documentary approach, the entire story is instead presented using live actors on location in appropriate costume. (Production values and special effects are not first-rate, but they're definitely more than adequate and comparable to much of what you would normally see on the History Channel.) Second, two narrative lines run throughout the production, and there's never any confusion about who is speaking. One speaker is clearly an omniscient voice who helps put the story of the gladiators into historical perspective, providing facts and details to enlighten the modern viewer; the second narrator is one of the gladiators, Verus, who tells the viewer whatever is on his mind as it relates to his story. In the end, the narrative approach works well and does not undermine the overall story or make it seem ridiculous despite the fact that the story does have a predictable element to it. On the whole the docudrama works well and does a good job of conveying the facts about Roman gladiatorial combat. It also blends fact and fabrication in a way that seems fair and reasonable so that the viewer has been well served when the credits roll.


Just prior to watching this, I read the other reviews of this. While there were only two that were particularly negative(and I won't claim that they're in the wrong... in fact, they bring up good points), I found my expectations lowering... and not being much of a fan of documentaries, and having little interest in history, they weren't high to start with. I tried to keep an open mind, and it worked; I liked what I saw. Instead of being purely a documentary, the narrator introduces us to Verus, our lead, within the first few minutes... after which, he joins in the narrating. From that point on, the narration is somewhat mixed... Verus tells us what he sees and experiences, and whenever he isn't in the scene(and occasionally while he is), the "present day" narrator explains about the gladiators and the time in which this took place... and slays several wide-spread myths about both, in the process. The drama and the documentary elements aren't separated... while it could have chosen to be either a full-on drama(no doubt evoking more emotions from the audience) or a genuine documentary(most likely being able to include even more information about the time), it chose an interesting path, involving both. The plot is as factual as it can be(as are all the tidbits of information), and it's well-told. The direction is impressively effective, being dramatic when it should be. The pace is very good. I was never bored for a second. The dialog is all in Latin, which is definitely commendable. The narration explains the important things said, though subtitles would have been nice. The fights, while they are fairly frequent, could have been just slightly better. Being a big fan of martial arts, they were a big part of why I watched this at all... and I would be lying if I claimed that I was not impressed with them. But the filming should have covered them better and the editing should have been tighter. Far too often, the momentum, the intensity was lost, if only for a second or two. Worse still, there were times when it was difficult to tell what was going on. If this were done on purpose, if the direction taken when making this was to show how chaotic these fights were, then it would have been a good creative call. But this was supposed to be a factual, detailed depiction of gladiatorial combat, and inducing head-scratching(as well as possibly causing some viewers to rewind in order to try to pick up on what *did* happen) is not good. The acting varies. All in all, I would say that anyone interested in the history will almost certainly like this. Anyone wanting an authentic drama set in this period will be satisfied. I would advise anyone simply in it for the fighting to not spend too much money on it, as you may find it unimpressive(compared to Hollywood and recent TV show fighting scenes). I recommend this to anyone in the aforementioned groups, and there is a bonus to anyone who speaks Latin(as every single line of dialog spoken is in this language). A very well done piece of film and documentary. 7/10


There is too little documentary value in this docu-drama, and frankly speaking I do not exactly know what the BBC invested so much in it. it may have been for rating reasons at the time of the release of the 'Gladiator' big studios movie, I am just speculating. The film focuses on the history of a gladiator by the time the Colosseum was built we learn a few new facts about the daily life and training methods of the gladiators and the organization of the fights, but the documentary value is too diluted and the fiction part not really too interesting. I found confusing the mix of first person story telling and historical comment in the off-screen commentary. Overall a below-average docu-drama.


This drama documentary was included as a DVD extra on Pompeii: The Last Day (2003) TV. I started watching it with little expectations and actually ended up liking it better than the main movie on the DVD.

One of the main reasons I enjoyed Coloseum: A Gladiator's Story is that the spoken dialog was in Latin. I studied Latin in High School, but have never heard it spoken on screen before. I think the movie would be understandable to someone who did not study Latin, as the narration is in English.

I liked the references to Martial (who I have not read) and Seutoneus (who I am just starting to read).

This story was not just about Gladiators, but about the political climate of the time and the reasons for building the Flavian Amphitheatre (known today as the Colosseum).


The way documentary and drama are mixed is excellent. The data on which the documentary parts are based are up to date and well-researched, and the dramatic parts are credible and give a good impression of life in Rome in the Flavian era. The voice-overs switch between first-person (Verus) and narrator; towards the finale, the narrator follows the texts of the Roman poet Martial. A very good counterweight against implausible fiction like Gladiator and The Arena. (By the way, the actor playing Verus' friend and colleague Priscus played a gladiator in Gladiator as well.) I was charmed especially by the Latin dialogue between the characters themselves. Well done!


I did not have high expectations on this movie, mostly because films following "The Gladiator" were facing a too big challenge, but this was worse than I expected. It is hard to define it as a movie, even harder to define it as a documentary, so I could call it (I admit, a little too cruel) a joke. Too bad for the efforts made to re-create the ancient Rome feeling, the commentary spoils everything. It is hard to understand who is making the comments, sometimes they come in the first person, sometimes in second, and several times they are referring to things that are totally out of the time of the Roman Empire - like the comment that the gladiators were sold as it happens to the football players, or the quotes from Suetonius. The fights are very short - the director could have used longer and better fighting scenes to make the movie a little more attractive, but failed to seize this opportunity. But this is not the main problem of the movie - it is what I was saying in the beginning, you don't know if it is a documentary or not. In my opinion, it is neither. If the director concentrated on the action, maybe it could have been a medium movie. I give this movie (?) a 2. That is only to offer some other movies the chance to be worse.


I went into this film a little hesitantly...How can there possibly be a fourth Scary Movie that still keeps its humour? Well, it was (half) possible. Although the overall structure isn't as tight as the other three, the jokes are often still 'fresh' and there's a lot of slapstick, which, although predictable, is still funny! Anna Faris (Cindi), as always, is still on top form, as is Regina Hall (Brenda) and together, they deliver some fantastic comedy.

If you're looking for a new, original comedy, perhaps this isn't for you. However, if you're a fan of Scary Movie 1, 2 and 3, then how could you boycott this one?! Go for it, even if it's only 80 minutes for a laff and a haff!