A bit preachy in the style of the day but a remarkable film. The opening is especially strong. Among the interesting touches, the movie lynch mob is made up mainly of college students wearing their school t-shirts. New York Model Adele Jergens didn't have much of a Hollywood career but she's right on the money in this one. Although the time frame is post WWII, the story is based on an actual lynching in San Jose, California, in 1933. Reporter Royce Brier of the San Francisco Chronicle won a Pulitzer for his account of the event.California Governor James Rolph Jr. was quoted as saying he would like to turn over all jail inmates serving sentences for kidnapping to the custody of "those fine patriotic San Jose citizens, who know how to handle such a situation."


Frank Lovejoy is a veteran who never was sent overseas during the war. He can't find a job to support his wife (Kathleen Ryan) and little boy. Angry, embittered, and perhaps a little guilty, he falls in with bad guy Lloyd Bridges who sport platinum cuff links and seems to be enjoying himself all over the little California town. Bridges offers Lovejoy a job as his wheel man. Just a couple of minor stick-ups, nothing serious. But the robberies escalate into the kidnapping of a college boy from a rich family. Bridges, an envious psychopath, kills the kid out of spite. Both Bridges and Lovejoy are caught and jailed but several thousand people break into the jail, beat the men, and pass them outside overhead like serving platters where they meet vigilante justice.

I haven't seen it since I was a kid but the memory of that climactic collective murder still makes me wince.

It's impossible to comment on the performances, or on much else for that matter, after the passage of so many years but unless my brain has turned to tofu, I'm compelled to recommend the film.

It was made at the height of the anti-Red hysteria in Hollywood, a time when subliminal pro-communist messages were being read into cinematic trifles. And the advertising campaign that accompanied this release seemed almost to goad the audience into mindless mob action. Get in on the ground floor of the explosive rage for justice! That sort of thing. In other words, hang the Reds.

It was completely at odds with the message of the movie itself, which was that ordinary guys can get sucked up by circumstances and find themselves suffering the same fate as those who are truly evil. Oh -- and mobs can be dangerous. (If you're a social psychologist, think "risky shift".) Out of all the simple black-and-white crime melodramas that appeared in the post-war period, this is one of the few that had me by the lapels.

Based on a real incident in 1930s San Jose, California.

If it shows up, be sure to catch it.


This is a true sleeper in the film noir category, because so few people saw it in original distribution. There was a legal dispute caused by the original title, "Sound of Fury" which some felt was too close to Fritz Lang's "Fury" filmed earlier.

Much of this picture was filmed in Phoenix, and the old city courthouse is very prominent, with it's beautiful copper doors. A true 'dive' nightclub, the "La Jolla Club" later known as the "Guys and Dolls" was used for a key scene.

Lloyd Bridges showed his wonderful range and capability as a wild-eyed psycho, and Lovejoy was tragically sympathetic as a tortured regular guy gone terribly wrong. The cast was very strong.

This is on a par with any of the noir films of the late 40s-early 50s, and holds up today.

Enjoy!


The original box for the video featured Patsy Kensit, who at that time looked like she was going to become a big star. It never happened, & now Elizabeth Hurley (who receives third billing) is featured on the front of the video box. My, how things change! This is a slow moving but very unusual & interesting character study of three people on a small boat, traveling from Gibralter to Barbados. The acting is superb (especially Kensit & Prochnow, both of whom have much charisma), the changing small group dynamics are very interesting for viewers who like character studies, & there's quite a surprise in the plot. Notice the double standard of Kensit's character as she first has sex with a man (in exchange for something she expects but never gets) & then disapproves her friend's (Hurley's) going a bit "too far" after their burlesque dance routine. It's this same ambiguity that drives her character throughout the movie. Hurley is shown semi-nude briefly a couple of times, so that may either peak your interest or turn you off; not for younger viewers. Stick with it during the slow moments, it's worth it. I rate it 8/10.


I enjoyed this film, even though I didn't expect to. The minor characters were hammy and unconvincing, but once on the boat the three main characters were very good, particularly Patsy Kensit and Elizabeth Hurley. However, the women's behavior was absolutely incomprehensible to me. I think the screenplay needed more background on their characters. A surprise ending.


If you are interested in brief glimpses of Elizabeth Hurley's nipples you might find this movie interesting. That is the only redeeming quality of this strange movie with an odd, confusing story featuring odd confusing characters.

Periodically the story seems to be about to make sense but then it falls apart again as the characters do something else seemingly unmotivated or poorly motivated. While my drama instructor tried to avoid using the word "motivation" because of possibility of cliché I can think of no word better. There was simply no logical reason presented for the goings on in this film. The motivation is missing.

Of course, it was only one dollar in the bargain bin. Perhaps I shouldn't complain too much.


This was about as bad as they come. Throughout the movie, you'll continue to wait for a coherent plot, then at the end, a surprise ending that will leave you feeling empty.

Not unlike trying to stand an egg on it's end for two hours only to find out that it can't be done (unless it's the solstice).

Don't watch this.


This has got to be the out there 'Most Awful' film of 1990. Someone suggested the 'Skipper' was asked to leave a 'West Indies' port, hence the cruise. This is wrong on 2 counts. The skipper is suspected of committing 'foul play' on a rival and sinks to the bottom of a bottle and the port he meets and is tricked into a cruise by the women in is obviously Gibraltar (old Morris 1300 driven by port officials, scene showing the Rock). They then set sail on what is a most turgid voyage. At one point Su (Patsy Kensit) steals the Skippers' (Jurgen Prochnow) insulin whilst her friend Lou (Elizabeth Hurley) protects her friend from his rage. I think after that I'd be looking for the nearest ship, island anything to get rid of them both! The finale comes completely out of character for Lou, a crime without motive that is frankly unbelievable and the final written statement makes it clear that whoever wrote this tripe had one too many misogynist nightmares. If you want to watch something good in the 'sea-story thriller' genre try 'Deep Calm'. I guess if you've got a Patsy or Liz 'thing' you might put up with this, indeed there is an occasional Hurley boob flash. But really only of interest to C movie lovers Willie the dog gets my vote for best actor here.


Usually movies so-called curveballs don't catch me off guard, I am after all one of the viewers who knew instantly that the guy was actually dead in "The Sixth Sense" - it was plainly obvious to me but seemed to surprise some people - so I was a little taken aback by the curveball in this wannabe DEAD CALM. The main reason is that whereas the best curveballs have clues peppered liberally throughout the movie, this one comes completely out of left field. The movie itself is somewhat diverting entertainment, and for fans of Elizabeth Hurley (who has as far as I can recall her only topless scene in this movie) and Patsy Kensit this movie is a must-see. I did find Kensit very annoying throughout most of the movie which was a shame because I generally enjoy her work, but she was not helped by a pretty terrible script. Overall, an interesting way to spend a couple of hours though better as a rental than a purchase.


WEll this was a true tale of the seas, that would have been better left bobbing around like the corker it is. The crew were good looking enough but they were so slovenly that they deserved to be keel hauled before breakfast, (for the sharks that is). The only reason to keep watching beyond the first few minutes is the vain hope that the two crew might get it on, so let me save you the trouble and let you know that they don't. I have to say that Hurley was virtually unrecognizable, whether it was pre-surgery or that simply thinning her eye brows really dose the trick, I am not sure. To sum it up I think it would have best served each of their careers, including the director, if this film had simply sunk without trace or even a ripple. Aye aye cap'n, loose the ma'n sail, hard to port if you get my drift.


I bought this DVD because I mistakenly thought that the premise had some interesting mystery/suspense possibilities, that the attractive, well-recognized cast would deliver entertaining performances, and that, even if the plot and acting failed, there still might be enough to make the film one of those movies that is fun to watch because of how bad it is. To my immediate and mounting disappointment as the film droned on, none of this was true. Save yourself from this fate. The one-star rating was invented for a film like this.

The plot is undeveloped, incoherent nonsense. The film opens with a loud, dark, confusing sequence at sea where the sailor is caught in a storm and someone dies. There is never any serious attempt to explain or develop this story. Later, the now down-and-out sailor suddenly agrees to ferry two loudmouth, fringe bar singers and their bothersome dog on a 4-week trip to Barbados. During the trip, one of the singers takes an unreasoning dislike to the sailor, picks one childish fight after another with him, rummages through his possessions, and comes up with a theory that he killed the person on the earlier voyage because of a love triangle of some sort. The sailor later explains away the theory to the other singer, who seems friendlier to him, and then the whole murder theory is just dropped as if it were a mistake. After many tedious, labored, pointless scenes of the three on board quarreling, facing several trumped-up, ultimately boring seafaring adversities, and doing various routine chores like hosing dog poop off the deck, there is a last-minute, psycho-type killing on board that comes out of nowhere and explains nothing. The film ends with a cryptic message on screen about the fate of the survivors that, again, gives no meaning to anything that has come before.

The film is a complete failure not only as serious drama but as light entertainment. By no stretch of the imagination is it sexy, funny, or fun to watch. The superficial, loser characters could not be less interesting or attractive. The sailor is so grouchy, withdrawn, and broken-down, the hostile singer so exaggerated in her disagreeableness, the other singer so vapid and vacuous, the petty quarreling among the characters so constant and annoying, and the tone of the film so dark that there is not an ounce of chemistry or lasting good cheer among the characters. Not only is the characters' behavior a total drag, there is nothing erotic about the situations, scenery, or wardrobe. This includes an early, short, embarrassing scene in a bar in which one singer supposedly strips but clearly does no such thing and a split-second glimpse of a perfunctory, sleepy "love scene" that packs no punch whatsoever (I do not know what DVD version others saw, but if the one I saw contained any nudity, I must have missed it by blinking, leaving me only the actual pathetic substance of the film to judge).

Sadly, some movies have absolutely nothing redeeming about them. This is one of them. The only thing to do when this happens is to come right out and say so. There is nothing inappropriate about this. It is just the way it is. Reciting all the movie's flaws but then giving them a pass for no reason at all, straining to conjure and contrive tidbits that are supposedly worth watching, or engaging in speculative, wishful thinking that edited scenes or "possible explanations" exist that, like magic, would somehow make sense of this mess, only compounds the waste of time and money from a film like this and, even worse, contributes to the impression that moviegoers are suckers.

Yet, this is all that the would-be positive reviews of this film have been able to do. Someone who looks to a movie like this for a supposedly serious "portrayal" of "personalities" is the one who is "living a very sheltered life," not someone who takes this useless piece of fiction to task for it glaring flaws. The simplistic observation that spending a long time in close quarters on a boat can lead to cabin fever (and that it can be even worse if the people are psychos) is hardly the stuff of true meaning or entertainment value, with or without claimed "realistic sailing scenes." The suggestion that including a psycho in the cast means that anything goes and that all standards of quality, coherence, or enjoyability go out the window has no place in any credible effort at movie reviewing. When the best a review can say is that a film is "not totally worthless" and that it manages to leave the audience with nothing more than a "feeling of emptiness" (and no, that's not all movies "are about"), why bother to pretend it has any real value? Of course there can be "fluff" entertainment that is enjoyable. But that does not mean that anything on a screen qualifies. And it makes a mockery of any serious use of the terms to say that this film is a "personal drama," "character study," or "psychological study" of lesbian jealousy or anything else. What is on the screen here makes perfectly clear beyond any doubt that the movie does not deserve any of these obvious and unsuccessful efforts to make excuses for it.


Impressive as some of the later films of Kurosawa are - "Kagemusha" and "Ran" for example, I have to confess that it is his early work, particularly those set in modern Japan as opposed to its feudal past, that I find myself returning to with greater pleasure. He was not one of those artists who necessarily got better and better, rather was he one who continued to take on different challenges, not always with the same degree of success, as "Dodesukaden" and "Dreams" were to prove. I have long regarded the 1952 "Ikiru" as his greatest achievement, with the three modern day day films starring Toshiro Mifune that precede it, "Drunken Angel", "The Quiet Duel" and "Stray Dog", fascinating consolidations of his skill as a director. "Stray Dog" revels in technical accomplishment. It tells the story of a policeman who, after experiencing the theft of his gun while travelling on a bus, embarks on an odyssey to retrieve it. Questions of morality and honour loom large as they do in any Kurosawa film, with the quest becoming ever more urgent as evidence is gathered of the weapon being used in criminal activities. What might be regarded as plain bad luck in another culture is here seen as a matter of shame and dishonour by the unfortunate policeman, that has to be addressed forsaking all else. The search is pursued in a dazzling series of chases, encounters and interrogations that leaves the audience, like the hero, exhausted at times. The weather is hot throughout, characters sweat profusely and sometimes everything erupts in a tropical downpour - no other director uses rain so physically. Perhaps, at over two hours, "Stray Dog" is a little too long to sustain its material. It sags a little in the middle, but the chases at the outer ends of the film are wonderfully done, particularly the penultimate sequence where the cop pursues his prey through vegetation where city and countryside meet. You can almost smell the steamy atmosphere of a morning after rain where everything is about to heat up again. Possibly the other two Mifune films of the same period have the edge on this. They are more meditative works, their lengths more sustainable. But, for sheer cinematic bravado, this is the one.


The following year, 1950, would see Kurosawa achieve his first major international success with the masterpiece Rashomon. Here, Kurosawa doesn't quite have the sureness of touch which would characterize most of his career, but Stray Dog is nevertheless a fine film noir and an effective exploration of Kurosawa's ideas about postwar Japan in particular and the human condition in general.

As you might expect from such a genius, Kurosawa is not satisfied with a simple good-guys/bad-guys cops-and-robbers story. He explores in depth the social and economic conditions in postwar Japan which led many young people--particularly returning veterans--to take to crime, and also the particular circumstances which motivate the acts of Yusa (Isao Kimura), the criminal. Indeed, a series of mistakes by the hero, rookie detective Murakami (Toshiro Mifune), are one factor behind Yusa's crimes.

But neither is Stray Dog a facile blame-society message film, either. Kurosawa makes no excuses for Yusa. By giving Murakami a very similar history (so similar, in fact, that it comes off as a little contrived), Kurosawa makes the point that Yusa had the same choice as Murakami. That he chose differently is his responsibility.

But even more interesting to me is the character of chief detective Sato (Takashi Shimura), Murakami's superior officer, mentor, and friend.

Sato is the wise elder figure in this film, and in the hands of a lesser artist than Kurosawa, such a character generally ends up as a mouthpiece for the director's own viewpoint. Here, though, Kurosawa permits Sato to espouse a hardcore law-and-order philosophy: The cops are the good guys, the crooks are the bad guys, and that's it. Sato has no patience for Murakami's guilt feelings or touchy-feely philosophizing.

That Kurosawa would permit this view (which is not Kurosawa's view, nor the film's) to be given voice by the film's wisest, kindest, most competent, and most likable character is a mark of his confidence and courage.


STRAY DOG stands as the legendary Akira Kurosawa's first real masterpiece, noteworthy for at least two big reasons: the style - classic American film noir (rich, velvety b&w atmospheres), enhanced with a touch of Italian neo-realism (great use of diverse locations, which provide a great view of day-to-day postwar Japan), and the star, a young Toshiro Mifune, whose truly collaborative association with Kurosawa was cemented here, and would grow in spectacular fashion during the subsequent 16 years.

Mifune became as much of an international icon as Kurosawa, and this is the first film where it's easily evident why. As an example of film noir, STRAY DOG offers plenty of gripping suspense and moral complexity, and holds up well alongside classics like THE BIG HEAT, THE KILLING or THE MALTESE FALCON. Kurosawa touched upon international influences to an unprecedented degree in Japanese film (the internationalist impulses of Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi or Mikio Naruse are just as deep and varied, but far more discreetly deployed), Kurosawa also skillfully highlights Japanese specifics (the rookie cop expecting to be fired, even accepting the possibility in an apologetic fashion, only to be assured that he will not be fired - this would not occur in a similar American setting), while always linking the same details to universals: honor, nobility, responsibility. This would become the thread linking Kurosawa's celebrated period/samurai films to his contemporary dramas. STRAY DOG was perhaps the first of his films where it truly resonates in a global fashion - a timeless, classic film.


Captivating American-esque noir, one of Kurosawa's first great films. What seems like a weak premise for a thriller at the start actually ends up providing a great central situation for this movie which drives it forward much better than, say, Donzoko. Music, also is great.

Toshiro Mifune, looking young and handsome, is quite marvellous as the central character, a detective whose gun is stolen on a bus. What starts out as a detective nervous about finding his gun and fixing a silly mistake, develops into a frantic and desparate man who feels somehow responsible for whatever crimes are committed with his gun. The suspense and detective-story plot are well developed in Stray Dog, but what really makes the story captivating is the revelation of the central character's feeling of guilt throughout, and his learning about crime, criminals, and that what is important is to make good come of your mistakes.


With his penchant for incorporating "Western" ideas into his films, Kurosawa hits yet another home run with his take on the crime film. As ever, he manages to make scenes that would (in the hands of a lesser director) seem boring become absolutely riveting. Mifune's ride on the trolley, when he loses his gun, for instance; or the scene where he has to explain the situation to his superiors (and the subsequent search through police files for a suspect); or the long undercover sequence. We can almost feel his frustration. The tension mounts. And yet again we have the brilliant Shimura playing off of Mifune, speaking in carefully modulated tones as he dispenses advice to the hotheaded young detective. If ever there was a more perfect combination of performers in cinema history, I never saw them.


This early Kurosawa film interested me not only as a historical object, but because, as in every one of his films I've seen so far, the moral and philosophical implication of the story carries as much weight as the dramatic and poetic aspects. As another commenter said here, "When was the last time you saw a film where the central character had something called a moral imperative." To me it's extremely gratifying to find directors like Kurosawa, Bergman, and today's Hirokazu Kore-eda who treat moral themes seriously and with dignity, and don't shy away from difficult questions.

I was also intrigued by how almost every scene bears, already, the stamp of Kurosawa's unique vision as a director. I have no idea how this comes about, but there's just something there, almost like a fingerprint, that says "Kurosawa" unmistakeably. I would have to leave it to more gifted and better schooled viewers than myself to explain it, but I love seeing it. In part, I suppose it's due to the exceptionally fine cinematographers that Kurosawa habitually worked with.

I think the film is about thirty minutes too long, but if I have to see a film that's a bit too long, I'm at least glad it's by Kurosawa!


Stray Dog (1949)

An early Kurosawa film, made before he came to the attention of cinema enthusiasts with Rashomon. Toshiro Mifune plays a young detective whose pistol is stolen by a pickpocket. Fearing for his job, and fuelled by embarrassment he sets out to find his pistol, which has been used in two crimes by the thief, in Tokyo during a sweltering heatwave...

Kurosawa's western influences are as clear as ever in Stray Dog, as for all intents and purposes it plays like a conventional American police story. Several scenes reminded me of Orson Welles' later film Touch of Evil, particularly an extended montage sequence with a similar feel to the famous opening shot of Welles' film showing a disguised Mifune walking the streets as he attempts to track down blackmarket arms dealers accompanied by a cacophony of street noise and Latin-jazz-big band music. Another scene where Mifune and the older cop leading the investigation, played by Takashi Shimura, stakeout a Japanese Baseball game, could've been a Hitchcock set-piece. Elements of this film seem to have been referenced in a variety of contemporary works from the doppelganger criminal/detective idea in Michael Mann's Heat to John C Reilly's desperate search for his lost gun in Magnolia.

However, despite the references to conventional genre film, Kurosawa adds depth to his film with several philosophical themes and ideas. First is the subtle way in which the detective and the robber are shown to be connected. Mifune explains how his possessions were all stolen after the war, and that he contemplated turning to crime but decided on the opposite route of law enforcement. The robber, who ends up with Mifune's gun, commits the crimes exactly because he too had his bag of belongings stolen. Mifune feels a deep sense of guilt that his pistol has been used in these crimes and almost breaks down completely when his boss, Shimura, is shot and wounded. The idea resonates with Mifune, that the life of crime he managed to avoid has returned to his life through this chance occurrence. The robber himself, is only seen in the great final chase, but he is given surprising depth of character just in the chase alone. The final chase between the two men is a classic Kurosawa scene. In a tense moment, there is an instinctive reaction by both men that they've finally found each other. Mifune is shot in the arm, out in the countryside, as Mozart drifts from a piano in a nearby house. His blood drips onto the flowers below. The theme that the gun only has a certain number of bullets pays off, as the robber fires twice and misses, leaving the gun empty allowing Mifune to overpower him. The two men wrestle in the flowers, falling into a river and get covered in mud. The robber is eventually overpowered and handcuffed and Kurosawa composes a wonderful shot showing the two, unrecognisable and exhausted men arranged at either side of the frame in the foreground, like a mirror image, while a group of singing schoolchildren walk past in the background. The robber suddenly begins to cry, and howls in anguish. Identity is blurred, the robber is no more evil than the detective, just a weaker man who gave in to the difficult environment he was faced with.

Although some elements of the technique aren't as well developed as Kurosawa's most famous, such as the clumsy flashback intro and narration there are many moments which show the sign of the truly great filmmaker he was to become. The sense of oppressive environment, both place and weather, is strong and it's possibly the sweatiest film I've seen! The detective story itself is pretty compelling, but the final, climactic scene alone transcends simple genre film-making with something profound, poetic and moving.


Early Kurosawa masterpiece; arguably, his first. *Stray Dog* grabs your attention immediately, with the superbly weird close-ups of the mangy dog panting behind the opening credits. Following the credits, the director delivers a clinic on the art of montage, utilizing quick nonlinear cutting that makes the narrative get straight to the point: ashamed rookie cop (an impossibly young Toshiro Mifune) explaining to his boss that he lost his gun; then a jump back to earlier in the day during target practice; then a quick cut to a scene on a crowded city bus in which the Colt gets lifted. Properly impatient with exposition, Kurosawa has his editor wield the cutting knife with ruthless precision. Only after the premise is established does the movie slow down.

Indeed, *Stray Dog* tends to meander during the next two hours. There's a famous 8-minute sequence in which Mifune, going undercover in search of his gun, wanders through the detritus (human and otherwise) of a black-market underworld in bombed-out post-War Tokyo. These 8 minutes contain zero exposition, containing instead some stunning on-location montage from 2nd-unit guy Honda (who directed *Godzilla* later) that unabashedly turns into scathing social commentary, and this, in the final analysis, is far more interesting than the catch-as-catch-can plot about a rookie detective's stolen gun. Owing stylistic and thematic debts to old Eisenstein pictures as well as then-current trends in Italian cinema, Kurosawa fashions his own polemic about post-War Japan that can't help but fascinate historians. Those of us in the West who have our own perceptions about what Japan is like (the stereotype is that it's a spiffy country inhabited by spiffy people) will be shocked at the filthy conditions and depravity glimpsed at in this footage. It's a land in a time and a place where women steal pistols for criminals in order to score rice-ration cards.

The movie is ultimately about how a person maintains a sense of morality in such conditions. Mifune's cop is, after all, not too different from the psychopath whom he pursues: both are veterans in their late twenties who ended up on entirely different paths which have suddenly converged. One reviewer below complained about Kurosawa's "facile humanism" (how can humanism be "facile"?), but I rather call it a heroic humanism. Mifune is an honorable young man who chooses to be a hero: after all, it would've been easier to quit the force after enduring the shame of getting his gun stolen, and it certainly would've been easier to roam the black-markets like his antagonist Yusa and generally cave in to psychopathy. Kurosawa is suggesting that if a man (or a nation) chooses the right path, redemption can be found. Not for the last time, Kurosawa makes heroism and simple decency thrilling to watch.

All in all, *Stray Dog* is a landmark achievement for Kurosawa and for cinema in general. It stands proudly beside his more famous achievements in the decade that followed. 8 stars out of 10.


Akira Kurosawa's STRAY DOG (English title) is a riveting, poetic vision of a young Tokyo officer (Toshiro Mifune) who's handgun is stolen from him on a bus. Driven to obsession, he follows the trail of the pickpocket through the seedy underworld of post-war China, in an attempt to regain his honor. A rare film of great social and philosophical significance. The deceptively simple story grows more complex as the man who gains possession of Mifune's handgun begins killing people and Mifune starts to blame himself. Every single second of this film rings true. An incredible atmospheric combination, of noirish melodrama and dark comedy. Every bit as good as Kurosawa's celebrated samurai pictures.


This movie just keeps on getting better as it plays. The pacing is absolutely perfect, the beginning and most of the movie itself are slow, reflecting the oppressing heat. At the end it keeps getting quicker as Murukami becomes more and more frantic.

The best scene of the film is its climax when Murukami corners Yusa in the woods, the images are wonderful. And the end of the scene they fall to the ground, side by side, like twins. The symmetry of the shot creates a parallel between the two characters which is further explored in the rest of the movie, revealing that the two men are of the same kind.

The acting is wonderful, Takashi Shimura does a great job in portraying his veteran/mentor character and a young Mifune does a great job in showing Murukami's shame and lack of self confidence.

It's a shame the quality of the picture isn't as good as other black and white films but the movie's from 1949 so you can't really blame Kurosawa. I give this one a 9/10. If you like Kurosawa or film-noir this is a "must see".


Akira Kurosawa, along with his co-writer Ryuzo Kikushima, has here something very intriguing- a screenplay that really draws the viewer in, like opening up a tight, to-the-bone detective story by the likes of Dashiell Hammett (an influence on at least one Kurosawa film, by the way). His basic premise is deceptively simple- a nervous but completely professional and slightly worn-down cop, played by a young & trim Toshiro Mifune, gets his gun pick-pocketed on the subway, and he spends at least half of the film on his own looking for it. When a pickpocket specialist, played by one of the very best Japanese character actors Takashi Shimura, comes into being his partner on the case, then things, then the plot starts to thicken further. But as someone who's read (and tried to write) a few screenplays, I just know watching this how much detail probably went into it, the nuances of things that Mifune had to do. It's quite a delicate, awesome feat, considering the layers of the film's content.

Obviously, Kurosawa as the director calls the shots in terms of the visuals, his true forte, though this is him still in a young director mode, very confident in his style, though only giving minor fluoride's of style (sometimes quite well). This works to his advantage when using the motif of hot, heat, the wretched weight of a summer's day in the more crowded, poorer areas of Tokyo. But Stray Dog is more than just a kind of common detective film. That the story is sturdy and good enough to be akin very much to the American films of the time is almost besides the point. Like De Sica, to a degree, Kurosawa uses the post-war streets and real locations (it's not all just Toho this time), and it adds that layer of heightened realism for our main characters on the prowl; in fact one could look at this film as being like the Bicycle Thief (looking for a lost item in the dark places of the city) had it been written with a fair amount less sentiment and more grit.

When the suspense comes forth, it's really a knockout, especially when it comes time for he final confrontation with the thief, where it becomes such a struggle that the two are like, well, dogs, very primal as it boils down to the law versus the criminal. There's a certain sense of time and structure that sets apart Stray Dog from the numerous 'film-noirs' of American cinema of the period- while it contains the kind of determined edge and wit of those films, it also relies on portraying the people in this world as honestly as possible, however downtrodden things are (like Kurosawa's later film High & Low, location adds to the mood greatly). But even through Mifune's cautious and un-bending kind of performance, and Shimura's typical intelligent, laid-back way, it's the script that pulls everything together; that long, fascinating sequence of Mifine trudging through the streets looking for his gun was not very likely improvised. Very well done.


Stray Dog is the other detective noir film by Kurosawa along with High and Low. In this film a rookie homicide detective has his gun stolen which leads to a string of crimes each more violent than the previous. While it is unlikely you could make it to detective and be as "green" as this guy, it does make for an interesting plot device. We watch as the detective gets help from his fellow cops as he puts the whole thing together. There are also interesting parallels drawn between the detective and the criminal. Most of the film holds up well but there are times when it drags which is unfortunately common in Kurosawa films (except for Yojimbo which was perfect). All in all Stray Dog is a very stylish movie with some incredible shots and some ground breaking (at the time) film effects. It's worth watching just to see post war Japan.


This early Kurosawa effort floats stylistically somewhere between the film noir and neo-realism, incorporating the best from both worlds to elaborately craft a landscape (both physical and social) of post-war Japan. It's only been 4 years since the dreadful A-bombings and the subsequent defeat of Japan in WW2 and both the country and the people are deeply scarred. War veterans return home to find a country torn by poverty and as the saying goes, desperate conditions demand desperate measures.

A very young Toshiro Mifune plays the greenhorn detective who has his gun stolen and spends the rest of the movie trying to track down the culprit. As it turns out the culprit is a war veteran just like Mifune's character, only where the latter tried to do good and found an honest job, the former opted for the easy way out and became a criminal, using the stolen gun to rob and kill. This adds an additional layer of motivation for detective Sato. Not only does he have to restore his honour (ironically symbolised by the lost gun which he tries to retrieve), but also redeem himself by bringing the killer to justice. What makes matters worse for him is that every time his stolen gun is fired someone dies or gets injured, which adds another burden of guilt on the shoulders of the young detective.

The story might appear too moralistic and convenient (both antagonist and protagonist share a common background, being war veterans, making the distinction of good and bad all too easy), but it has to be seen in the context of the times. Mifune says that there are no bad people, only bad situations. But as his detective collaborator on the case remarks (played by the great Takashi Shimura, who also starred in Seven Samurai) he faced the same bad situation and made something good out of it. Kurosawa here neatly balances the social climate of post-war Japan and the conditions of the times with personal responsibility.

Story-wise it's a worthy effort, but like Rashomon, it sounds a little bit better than it actually is. Not that Stray Dog is a bad movie by any means, but clocking in at 2 hours it starts to drag near the middle. There are some nice set-pieces that showcase Kurosawa's growing talent (like the phone scene in the hotel where he uses inter-cutting to great effect) and the performances are solid all around. There's also a silent 10 minute montage of location footage shot in rundown neighborhoods as Sato searches the black market for his gun, which serves as a poignant snapshot of Japanese history.

Kurosawa would go on to achieve international acclaim with his next movie, Rashomon, but Stray Dog already shows that he was destined for great things. Compared to later entries in his filmography Stray Dog appears to be a minor entry, but it's still well worth the time to discover.


Much inequity in this world that takes away any chance of survival for millions of worthy brethren, much selfishness that brings only misery and loneliness!, Appearance and how much desire to feel superior to others when it will show us we are all equal!

At this very moment, thousands of human beings roam the streets in search of a few coins incessant to bring home food minimum. Hundreds of people walk long miles to get the scarce water that allows them to survive. Millions of workers are unemployed, from one side to another, with the gray hope that someone offered a decent job.

When I remember the old movies, my memory goes back Umberto D, vainly trying to stop the eviction. I remember Ali and his sister Zahra, in permanent anxiety about the tennis shoes worn they share.And behold, with its immense sensitivity to the common people and humanistic lyricism that flowed constantly, also the master Akira Kurosawa was busy making a film where, for a rookie detective, your weapon becomes endowment constant goal, when it was stolen on a bus.

Have a long way to go then, but life will put his hand to a noble and brilliant detective Satori. Not for nothing, Satori means light, flash lighting. The detective becomes for the rookie a lesson from professional full and dignified, that he may change his life forever. And for us, is an eloquent reflection of the integrity is preserved even in the toughest conditions.

It postwar period. Japan abounds in poverty and the poorest often go into prostitution, arms smuggling and anything else that allows them to survive. It is in this environment, where the two officers began searching for the man who has just committed a crime and, perhaps, the colt has withdrawn from Murakami.

Kurosawa gets each character has its own life, the delight in their weaknesses and their abundance, their strengths and weaknesses, as Terque and his wisdom ... thus creating a human picture that might produce this flash to be erased suddenly, but may never get that and more we are the same.

How significant would be the big film studios, this movie promote dignified man. And every school should enable young people to access these messages. It's just a matter of method... and love for humanity. And these two are doing now needed more than ever.


Decidedly, the early Kurosawa was the best; and he rightly ranks with Bergman, Fellini, Welles, with the very best.

There was a manly and controlled strength and energy and life in the early Kurosawa, that remains unmatched.

If you read this '49 thriller, or action drama, as a noir, then it's the most respectable noir ever; as original and ingenious, formally, as Welles', but much more ambitious; yes, the most ambitious noir ever conceived and executed. The richness of content and of style may seem unbelievable. There are touches of imperishable surrealist hallucinating beautya feverish and bizarre, disconcerting, tough masterpiece. While obviously influenced by the noir movies en vogue those days, it has nothing, properly speaking, of a pastiche. The plot is rather Chandleresque, requiring a firm hold on the personae and threads.

One can see why some were displeasedKurosawa kept filming noir movies, disguised westerns, Russian dramas, Shakespearian dramas, epics --even in NORA INU there's a strong Russian undercurrentbut all these shapes and means are never more than tools or instruments. Kurosawa aimed at universality; he often achieved it.

NORA INU seems a Russian novel filmed like a noir; or a noir, a pulp made like a Russian novel. Very Russian, indeed, and viscerally impressive; extremely atmospheric, suggestive, rich in urban life touches, with a strong load of eroticism in quite a few scenes, naturalistic and brutal in some respects, harsh as tone and bleakin many ways, rather unlike Kurosawa's ulterior elegiac and lyrical success IKIRU. I enjoyed very much IKIRU, but I have found NORA INU in some respects even stronger and more respectable; I ignored completely this early Kurosawa, Kurosawa's whole early career, and now I see it's something awesome. In NORA INU, Kurosawa does an Americanstyle movie better than the Americans; a drama with Russian contentbetter than the Russians. Kurosawa was a mighty stylist, very ambitious and skilled. Humanistic and wise, his work is deliberately 'cosmopolitan' and international, i.e., simply universal. What I knew less about him was this surrealist side, so obvious in NORA INU. It's more than the usual 'hot town' suggestiveness of some American outings, something more than the lecherous 'cat on the hot tin roof'/ 'long hot summer' neurotic poetry. But it has to be seen, to be believed. There are in NORA INU things, intuitions, images, bits that I, Cristian Ciopron, did not find yet in the American cinema; Kurosawa was, we all know it already, deft with the genre flicks, and NORA INU is an exemplar action dramawith what perspicacity and brio and shocking vehemence! Should I add that NORA INU instantly devalues most of the other noir movies as standard slapdash? Perhaps not.

Like Fellini, like Bergman, Kurosawa achieved here to give the cinema's poetry its most pure and unadulterated expression. Like or not his samuraisthis, NORA INU, is highvoltage surrealism.

Structurally, NORA INU is a baroque/ romantic masterpiece, with subtleties of construction and intricacies of layout. The enormous richness, of content, themes, styles, produces a startling impression. It's an honor, dear readers, to write about such capital achievements; and you, please honor Kurosawa's NORA INU by seeing it. It's one of the movies that redefine cinema for somebody.

Previous to seeing NORA INU, I thought that I knew something about the noir cinema; I knew nothing.


This is Akira Kurosawa's venture into noir, and a definite departure for those who are more familiar with his samurai films. It stars Kurosawa regular Toshirô Mifune as a young war vet turned policeman, who loses his gun on a crowded streetcar. His wise boss pairs him with 25 year police veteran Takashi Shimura to find the gun, which has been used in an assault and robbery. Before it is over, the gun will be used to kill a woman and Shimura will also be shot.

I can say with certainty that this is one Japanese movie that will never be remade in Hollywood. The overriding theme of this film is responsibility. I can no more imagine an American cop in the anguish of Mifune, and offering to resign because his gun was used in a crime, than I can imagine, well, I just can't image anything more foreign.

Mifune was consumed with his responsibility in the matter and was relentless in finding his gun. With the help of the wise veteran Shimura, he managed to overcome all odds and succeed. But, Shimura reminded him that he would soon forget the matter as there were many more Yusa's out there preying on the people.

It was an excellent look at post war Japan and the struggles of the people to exist. It was another brilliant work in the outstanding collection of Akira Kurosawa.

Not to be missed.


A long-standing blemish on my status as a film buff has been the fact that I had never seen a film directed by Akira Kurosawa, easily the most well-known and respected Japanese filmmaker. Finally, my drought has been broken, as I sat down last night to enjoy 'Nora inu / Stray Dog (1949).' A police procedural in the classic film-noir tradition, the film stars Kurosawa-regular Toshirô Mifune as a young homicide detective whose firearm is pick-pocketed while on a bus. When it becomes clear that the weapon has fallen into the hands of a desperate, murdering criminal, Det. Murakami becomes consumed with guilt and shame, and it is only through the experienced guidance of mentor Det. Sato (Takashi Shimura) that he can overcome his insecurities and track down the suspect. 'Stray Dog' was the director's tenth film, and the third in a wealth of collaborations with Mifune throughout an illustrious career. Though it is not quite the masterpiece I had {probably unreasonably} been anticipating, I can only promise that my first Kurosawa will certainly not be my last.

Surprisingly, 'Stray Dog' is similar in many regards to Vittorio De Sica's neorealist masterpiece 'The Bicycle Thief (1948).' Both films concern a disillusioned man's seemingly-futile search for an essential stolen object, in a city of poor and pitiable individuals, where, in the aftermath of World War Two, widespread economic difficulties have forced many towards a life of crime. When Det. Murakami first begins searching for his stolen gun, there is a wonderful extended sequence in which he purposelessly wanders the poverty-stricken streets, experiencing the decadence of society for himself, for the first time understanding why a criminal might have been forced to tread a darkened path. A very important theme of the film is the obvious parallel between Det. Murakami and his suspect, Yusa (Isao Kimura). Both individuals fell on hard times when their knapsacks were stolen: while the former took the crucial step towards law enforcement, the latter chose the opposite path, eventually becoming a thief and a wanted murderer. In the story's climactic chase sequence, the two men tussle violently in the undergrowth, their faces becoming coated in a layer of mud; for a decisive few moments, detective and criminal are practically indistinguishable from each other.

One component of film-making that Kurosawa had evidently mastered by 1949 was creating intensity, and, in many ways, 'Stray Dog' is simply discomforting to watch. The events of the film appear to take place during an extreme heatwave, and the perspiration clings to the skin of the actors as though they are practically roasting in their seats. When the story reaches a devastating climax, its arrival is heralded by the breaking of a storm, the passing of the sweltering drought perhaps symbolising that the dull, futile routine of police procedure has come to an end. I was also impressed by the frantic chase sequences at both the beginning and end of the film, which, aside from being exceptionally thrilling, were genuinely harrowing. Watching Murakami and Yusa grapple in the vegetation, before both collapsing to the ground in fatigue, I don't think I've ever seen film characters looking so utterly exhausted. Despite a masterful opening and closing, 'Stray Dogs' tended to drag a lot in the middle, with the two detectives moving from one possible witness to the other, very slowly gathering the information they require to track down their suspect. Nonetheless, I now have the massive undertaking of deciding which of Akira Kurosawa's films I will watch next.


A lost pistol, one police officers search through the sleazy side of post war Tokyo to track it down and save his honour by doing so - a classic film noir plot. This is a Kurosawa movie, so of course it is executed brilliantly. This film is full of dazzling sequences with highly imaginative and technically adept editing and camera work. This may be his first 'great' movie, but in some sections it betrays his relative inexperience as a film maker - it slightly loses focus in the central part of the movie and he occasionally over-eggs his metaphors (something Kurosawa was always inclined to do). He is also clearly experimenting with different techniques, he hasn't quite found his own unique film language. But it is still a truly great film, it deserves to rank up there with the best noir movies from America and France.

There are many pleasures here - the vivid scenes set in a crippled and poverty stricken Tokyo - the individual vignettes - the pain of the widower who curls up in agony at the thought of his dead wife - the young dancer torn in her loyalties to the one man who showed her generosity - and even the twisted agony of the murderer as he realizes he has lost his freedom. The penultimate chase sequence is truly masterful, its hard to imagine it being ever done better - every element of it, the chase, the cutting to a piano playing lady, curious at the noise, the final vision of children playing and a flower blowing in the wind - stunning.

Most of all, this is a morally complex movie - the constant unease of the policeman who realizes how close he is to the 'stray dog' nags away at the movie and becomes stunningly real at the end, as they both lay exhausted in the grass side by side, almost like sated lovers. Kurosawa was far ahead of his time in his portrayal of how chance determines how we end up, but having fallen on one side of good or evil, people build up walls to emphasize their separation from the 'other'. As a new policeman, Mifune is tortured by his knowledge of how similar he is to the killer, but his older, more mature colleague assures him that he will learn to hate them, to see them as beneath him.

As with most of Kurosawas movies, there are no simple conclusions - while there may be superficial 'morals' to his tales, look beneath and there are layers upon layers of complexity and ambiguity, but always within a context of his sympathetic humanism. His films may be bleak but they never give in to cynicism or irony.

This may not be quite as accomplished as his later 'High and Low', but it is still a terrific thriller that puts the vast majority of modern movies to shame. Strongly recommended.


Towards the end of the period of Japan's occupation by US forces, Kurosawa took on a typically American genre, the film noir. In Stray Dog he weaves a tale that is part whodunit and part social drama. Kurosawa further develops his style in what was the beginning of his greatest area, aided by another great performance from leading man Toshiro Mifune that tops his part in the earlier Drunken Angel.

I get the feeling Kurosawa really put his finger on the pulse of post-war Japan in this picture  as he tried to do but just fell short in Drunken Angel (1948). Mifune's detective character and his opposite number, Ko Kimura's criminal are not just typical examples of Japan's après guerre generation, they are also symbolic of the conflicting feelings prevalent in the defeated Japanese nation. On the one hand there is the guilt and responsibility detective Murakami feels over losing his gun, and opposite that the unhinged Yusa's blind anger and sense of injustice. Another telling reference to the impact of the war comes when Murakami is told to dress as a down-and-out, and subsequently puts on a shabby soldier's uniform.

Although there is less warmth and more tragedy to this picture, Kurosawa demonstrates the same kind of sensitivity and tenderness he showed in Drunken Angel. In the scene where Murakami and Sato visit the scene of the second robbery, the sense of tragedy is brilliantly conveyed with a series of shots showing the house and garden empty, while we overhear neighbours whispering to each other about what has gone on. Also, unusually for a film noir (but more or less the rule for early Kurosawa) the characters are really likable. There is a great warmth in the relationship between the younger and older detectives, and the earthy, cheekiness of the petty criminals that pop up here and there in the film is almost charming.

Kurosawa himself dismissed the film as being "too technical" with "not one single thought in it". In particular critics have often attacked the long drawn out search sequences in the first half hour of the film. While I agree they are perhaps a little over done, they are not only Kurosawa's opportunity to show off a number of visual styles, but also all the sights and sounds of the city, in an almost neo-realist style. Besides, the apparent aimlessness of this part of the film seems to be a deliberate match for Murakami's bungling ineptitude in the early stages of his investigation. In fact, the coherence of the plotting and pacing comes together at the same rate as the detectives' investigation. The final half hour is incredibly taut and tense.

Kurosawa's kinetic approach to shot composition is really starting to shine through here, with whirring desk fans, spinning arcade games and billowing net curtains keeping moving elements in the frame even when the actors are still. He also begins making frequent use of horizontal wipes, matching the direction of the wipe with the direction of movement on screen.

It's hard to talk about Stray Dog for long without mentioning the weather. Kurosawa obviously paid attention  and made his actors pay the same attention  to ensure that every single shot contained some reference to the sweltering heat. The heat wave builds up until the final night of the investigation when it breaks into a storm. It's perhaps a little more of an obvious use of the weather than in his later pictures, but it established a crucial Kurosawa motif.

Stray Dog is a very decent early Kurosawa picture, in spite of his own misgivings about it. It's also a solid film noir which, although often very dark and negative, in balance bucks the trend by being overall uplifting and leaving you with a satisfied feeling  although some might say that excludes it from being counted as a film noir at all. Whatever the case, it is certainly a fantastic film.


First-rate film by a first-rate director, in which pretty much every shot is a composition of expressive beauty. The story is rich and juicy, full of the dramatic potential which can jump a stylistic gear into melodrama with very little effort, but also weighted with a powerful message about personal moral responsibility. Toshiro Mifune, embodies this moral message in his passionate,intense performance as Murakami. The moment when, visiting the home of his fellow detective (the excellent Takashi Shimura) Murakami smiles for the first time in the movie on meeting his colleague's children is particularly moving. And it is again the presence of children that transfigures the amazing final struggle between hero and villain. The use of sound is remarkable, especially in the last act, when what we hear through the other end of the telephone is deployed to powerful effect. There was always a surprise around the corner, whether one of pace or image or sound or performance or turn of the narrative - though in fact it's a very straightforward story, told in a linear fashion, but that description really doesn't do justice to a sequence such as when we go to the ballistics lab at the police station, Mifune learns about a bullet found at the scene of a crime, and then he dashes off without any warning - and we follow him - to a shooting range at which we'd seen him early on in the film, retrieving a spent bullet of his own, and then we dash back to the ballistic lab, and then go into a microscopic close-up POV ballistics man, comparing the two bullets. It's completely the right thing to do, because we are suddenly at one with the hero's concerns. The director's particular gift is to tell the story from the perfect, most poetically expressive, point of view. It reveals in its beauty the sheer dross that is the bulk of screen fodder, dwelling on which can make you a little sad, but knowing work such as this exists is so uplifting, it reminds you of the value of real reel art and artists.


Stray Dog (1949)

Theft, murder, lies and money. The pursuit of a single gun creates a compelling story that is pushed further by human behavior and weather.

The plot has Murakami searching for a gun he lost in the city of Tokyo. The shooting locations look very everyday, but never on the Tokyo skyline. The back alley, the restaurant, the hair salon, the train station, they all have a familiar feel to them. These locations aren't just there, there are several things happening there as well. There's people shopping downtown, there's people getting their hair cut, there's people at the baseball game, all of these people everywhere give the impression that the city is indeed full of people and adds to the mood and atmosphere of the movie. It is very evident that everyone who has a line in the movie has a story: the hotel worker is suffering because of the heat, the police units are tackling several other cases, and several other characters give hints about their own lives and how they are dealing with problems, which all brings life into the film. The atmosphere of a busy market place where Murakami goes undercover to look for his missing gun adds to the frustration of the scene. A sea of thousands of faces blur together and drags along. On first glance the scene feels too long and the audience gets the point after a minute, but by doing this the focus turns from the plot to the character of Murakami as the viewer sees how badly he wants his gun back.

The gun becomes a MacGuffin plot device, the drive for Murakami is to get his gun back before it can harm anyone else. When he finally does confront the killer and forces the gun away, it is no longer mentioned.

The overwhelming heat in the movie takes it's toll on the two detectives and other characters. Exhaustion begins to take over as the characters loose sleep, get frustrated and are overloaded with work. Sato sees that his young partner is going through the stages of exhaustion and tries to get Murakami on the right track and brings up the film's key symbolism, a rabid stray dog (even though rabies are extremely rare in Japan). The exhaustion factor makes Murakami grumpy, quick to anger and narrow visioned. At times he can only focus on getting his stolen gun back at any cost, getting person X and not noticing his surroundings, and blindly heading after people. Sota is often the voice of reason, but the heat gets to him too.

One thing that black and white films can't do as well as color is show the temperature effects. For an example, in Stray Dog, the effect of heat is barely felt since it's hard to ditinquish heat waves and the color differentaces in skin tones that show how moist skin is and how sun burnt it is.

The heat isn't the only weather device used in the movie, the big rainfall brings change in the movie. Harumi Namiki, who is the murder's girlfriend changes her mind after the rain fall and decides to help the detectives. The rain also signifies sadness and brings a dramatic effect to Sato being shot. After the rain comes a warm summer day where the murder is caught while birds are chripping, flowers are growing and things feel more lively then when the heat wave was in effect.


Akira Kurosawa is known mostly for his historical films, which typically incorporate samurais and Toshiro Mifune. Stray Dog, on the other hand, takes place in post-War Japan and travels its mean streets convincingly, though, truth be told, it also features Toshiro Mifune (thankfully in one of his better and less histrionic performances).

Mifune, a greenhorn homicide detective, has his gun pinched on a bus-ride home from target practice; the remainder of the movie finds him searching for his missing pistol, first undercover as a homeless veteran and then under the tutelage of Takashi Shimura's Detective Sato.

It's a crime movie, plain and simple, but Kurosawa digs deeper than that, exploring the postwar sludge of his homeland. Mifune's Detective Murakami and the criminal Yusa are, ostensibly, mirror images of one another--both are young veterans who had their possessions stolen from them on the train-ride home after the war. Murakami, as he explains, almost snapped but chose the righteous path and became a cop; Yusa became a petty thief and then a murderer.

The exploration of the travails of the postwar Japanese youth is fascinating--just as fascinating as Kurosawa's dissection of history and storytelling in Rashomon. However, unlike Kurosawa's greater films (Dodes'ka-den and Rashomon), Stray Dog still feels like a young man's work. This was his ninth or tenth film, I think, and he was finally coming into his own on a visual level (there are some stunningly filmed sequences and his framing and arrangements are divine). However, the film, for all its intelligence, lacks subtlety, at least in translation. The concept of Yusa and Murakami as doubles, in a sense, is driven home often and obviously--Kurosawa does not require his audience to do any work of its own; everything is spelled out conveniently. It's a shame Kurosawa lacked trust in his audience because this film might have been his best if it had had a little more gentle of a hand. Murakami's distress over his gun being used in crimes also seems a little heavy-handed. Perhaps it is a cultural thing (it probably is), but he seems to overreact. Yes, losing a gun is terrible, but, my man, despair is not the answer.

In any event, Stray Dog is a very good film and should be watched more than it probably is. It's better than any of Kurosawa's historical films (excluding Rashomon) and a lot of fun too.


Stray dog comes out as a very beautiful film about human existence, dressed in the clothes of film noir and German expressionism. Shot in black and white, it tells the story of a young detective in post-war Japan, who gets his gun stolen. Shame propels the young detective on to a journey through the Japanese society, in search of the gun all the while the gun is being used to commit crimes. The society he enters during his chase is a torn and chaotic one, and the young detective soon learns that to get back gun and restore some of his honor, he have to resolve to use more wit and cunning than he is used to. He is also required to understand the society he is trying to penetrate. To aid him and to realize this he has an older detective, played by the always marvelous Takashi Shimura. He enters the life of the young detective with an enigmatic power and balanced pathos that brings the legendary relationship between a roshi and his pupil in zen, to mind. Kurosawa has a way of contrasting the beautiful and life-promoting forces intertwined with the ugly and nihilistic forces, that renders some of his forces extraordinary dept and life. This is one of those pictures.


As a break to my usual diet of crappy low budget cinema, I've been watching foreign films. Like many others, my first Kurosawa film was "The Seven Samurai." I enjoyed his films, but until watching Stray Dog I thought that his work all took place in feudal Japan. This was one of Kurosawa's first films and was set in modern Japan.

Kurosawa regular Toshiro Mifune plays a rookie police officer whose gun is stolen on a hot summer day. The officer feels great shame and wants to track his stolen gun down. He manages to find a gun dealer in the seedy underworld who handled his Colt pistol. From there, he an a veteran detective track down his gun as it is used to commit armed robberies and a murder.

The focal point of this film is really Mifune's character. While tracking his stolen gun, he has to go incognito as a former soldier who is now living a life of desperation (we learn that his character really lived this life before getting a job with the police). He also learn that the suspect he is tracking lived the same life as he did, but took to a life of crime.

The changes in post war Japan also play a major role in this film. What really caught me was the change from the imperial Japanese way to the "modern" life. This is mostly seen through changes in dress, music and out look on life. At one point, we see a pick pocket who has traded in her kimonos (what used to be her trademark) for western style dresses. There's a mother who is trying to control her daughter who is a cabaret dancer and wants to have nice things no matter how she gets them. And the list goes on.

Kurosawa used a fantastic montage sequence involving Mifune's trip into the underworld that would bring tears to Fritz Lang's eye. The film can be gritty, yet sentimental. Kurosawa didn't like this film because he saw it as a failed effort to make a detective film in the style of French detective novels. I disagree. The film takes on its own life and gives an insight to westerners about how post war Japan feels.

Fantastic.


This is one of the early movies in the long career of Akira Kurosawa and a brilliant movie nonetheless. This movie can be considered the first of the Japanese police dramas. The main topic of the movie seems to be post World War II Japan. The movie deals with the similarities and difference between the cop and the crook. They are very similar in background (both were veterans of the war, both had their satchels stolen), yet ended up on opposite sides of the law. Kurosawa is showing the effects of the war on Japan. Where some steal and take the criminal way out to survive, others survive by doing what is right (and harder - as characterized by Harumi's speech to Murakami about the dress from Yusa). Even in this world, the criminal is not truly ruthless. Kurosawa accurately captures the feel of postwar Japan, by actually filming in its locations (when Toshiro Mifune travels through the market - those are actual shots of the black markets in various cities). So dangerous it was to shoot there in fact, that the "feet" of Murakami were actually a body double (or foot double) for Toshiro Mifune. Kurosawa uses the actors that he uses in so many classic movies - Toshiro Mifune (a breakout role for Mifune, who had been typecast as a yakuza in his movie roles thus far), Takashi Shumura (Detective Sato) and the first movie appearance for Minoru Chiaki. This movie starts out rather slowly in the progression of the action (Murakami's gun is stolen on a bus - revealed in a flashback to a superior), but picks up quickly once the Sato is assigned to help Murakami. This movie is recommended to any fan of the Japanese cinema, of Kurasawa, and of the police drama.


Straw Dog is another excellent film from Kurosawa. It deals with the guilt, and obsessive search, by a young detective, for his missing revolver. With this search Kurosawa explores the post WWII environment in Japan. This is a terrific multi-layered film well worth watching.


Even with some very slow bits in this film, I still have to say it is my second favorite film by Kurosawa (after Seven Samurai, of course). Scenes and dialogue in this film just stick with you, like when a young pickpocket is sharing a popsicle in a police interrogation room with streetwise and experienced Inspector Sato (played by one of my favorite actors, Takhashi Shimura). They seem, strangely, to be enjoying themselves. But then Sato gives the girl a cigarette and she sucks on it as if her last breath was coming, smoking almost the whole cigarette in 30 seconds. The tension that pours out of the girl in that scene is incredible. Shimura and Mifune as the wise, old cop and the young, earnest rookie are absolutely convincing and completely mesmerizing. The streetwise petty criminals that they meet paint such a vivid picture of post war Tokyo that you feel the heat and choke in the dust with them.


This is a gritty, seedy, film noir that can be ranked with the best American Noirs from the 40s. It is interesting for many reasons:

the post-war Japanese mind-set of the characters.

A handsome young Mifune(but already very good at seething, glowering, and ranting:"WEAR THE DRESS!")

The plot that parallels the cop with the killer, psychologically. It's very well done.

Visually rich. Location shots, tracking shots, compositions, all very nice.

I liked this one more than "Throne of Blood" but I'm a big Noir fan. There are some scenes that go on too long, and the first half is a bit slow. But the last 20 minutes are perfectly orchestrated, with beautiful tight editing and small visual touches. The final meeting between the cop & criminal at the train station is a classic sequence.


Stray Dog together with Rashomon are the two films that boosted Kurosawa into international popularity as a great filmmaker.

Murakami (Toshiro Mifune) is a young police detective. One day during a crowded bus ride, he realizes that his pistol has been stolen. He soon becomes obsessed with finding the pistol and feels especially guilty after he finds out that it has been used to commit multiple murders. He makes it his duty to track down the thief and along with his partner (Takashi Shimura)they realize that the case is far more complicated than they thought.

The plot is extremely well crafted and ranks up there with the best film noir. But the film is uneven at parts and some scenes drag a little too long. The film is well worth your time though, and offers an early glimpse at the amazing technique that dominated Kurosawa's later films.


I just finished watching the Criterion edition of Akira Kurosawa's "Stray Dog," and I honestly cannot think of a better thing to say than, "Oh, my God!" This movie, clocking in at just over two hours, so mesmerized me with its story, naturalistic acting and technique, I honestly did not notice the time. And when it was over, I was drained.

The story is simple -- a rookie detective's pistol is stolen from him and, as he frantically tries to track it down, winds up being used in crimes that grow more and more violent. Sounds like the kind of thing tossed off every week in one of the "Law & Order" series or any other fake police drama on TV. But the way Kurosawa and his co-writer, Ryuzo Kikushima, take this story and layer in shame and guilt and responsibility and reality and acceptance and understanding and pity and anything else you can consider a decent human emotion is breathtaking. Try finding anything like THAT on "CSI" or "SVU".

As Murakami, the rookie, Toshiro Mifune internalizes his usual intensity and lets his eyes and expressions convey his growing sense of shame and horror when his pistol is used first in a robbery and then again in an even worse crime. As his mentor, Det. Sato, Takashi Shimura offers a gentle honesty and low-key approach to life that is not tempered by any pity for the criminals; he even tells Murakami that he hates them...and says it so simply, it's like it's the most natural thing in the world. The bond that grows between these two men...the chemistry between them...is the heart and soul of the movie, but the incidental characters are just as important. A pickpocket who feels pity for Murakami and brings him a beer and some food. A young showgirl who just wants something pretty in her life. A poverty-stricken sister worried about her brother. A gun dealer who loves baseball. A hotel owner with the hots for one of his maids. All add to the tapestry of Tokyo in the immediate post-war period and expand upon the emotion of the piece.

Add to this Kurosawa's already masterful technique and sense of storytelling, and you have a thriller more gripping and involving than just about anything churned out by today's Hollywood (the "Bourne..." series excepted). The closest American film I can think of that even begins to approach this movie's combination of an honest, tedious criminal investigation and real human emotion is "The Naked City", which was made in 1948. And that movie still had its "Hollywood-ish" elements in the home scenes with Don Taylor's detective.

"Stray Dog" isn't just a movie; it's like a Ferrari that seems to merely purr as you drive it...until you look at the speedometer and realize you're doing 110. On top of this, the Criterion edition of the movie has a wonderful documentary about the making of the film. Watch the show, first, then watch the documentary to savor it. It's totally worth the ticket.


This movie is a powerful portrayal of gay life and homophobia in small-town America, in this case Homer, Connecticut. Narrated through all three vignettes by Eric Stoltz's character, the character is 6 or so in "1954" when a young woman (Brittany Murphy) returns from the Navy with a Section 8 discharge for "deviant sexual behavior". In "1974", Stoltz is a fresh-from-Vietnam veteran tending grounds at the town war memorial at a time when the high school's star swimmer (Johnathan Taylor Thomas) wants to come out to his French teacher (Stephen Weber). In the last vignette, Stoltz's groundskeeper is greying, and some in the town (mostly veterans and church-goers) are protesting the marriage of two gay men, one of whom has wedding-day jitters and a father (Ed Asner) who helped organize and mobilize the protest.


This movie was great. A must see. It will touch the bottom of your heart, its well done, a great plot, with great stories. I loved this movie. I cried at the end like a little girl.

It's great to see a movie that was made thinking about the gay community, and that help us to fight homophobia.


Donna Deitch has done a great job of conveying highly pertinent real life aspects of gay and lesbian recent history and modern life.

With very tight scripts and damned fine acting from all players, it would be hard to go wrong, but Donna makes the whole film cohesive and attractive. I also really enjoy the stereo soundtrack.

I've seen Common Ground several times, enough to be inspired to import the NTSC tape - and the only problem with it is that the left and right channels are reversed (it's worth swapping your cables around temporarily).

Even though I know my emotional buttons are being pushed, I still enjoy every word and aspect of this film. It offers inspiration for younger and older gays and lesbians - and food for thought for our family and friends.

This is high quality, gimmick-free and utterly honest film-making.


COMMON GROUND sports excellent acting and generally very strong writing as it tackles different shadings of the gay experience in a small town setting. Small towns can be most unforgiving about differences, especially differences that are hated and feared, like homosexuality. This was brought across quite well in COMMON GROUND which traces gay/lesbian life in three different time settings: 50s, 70s, and the present day. By far the strongest segments were the first two. The last, written by Harvey Feirstein, was lighter in nature, which isn't a bad thing, but the characters were not as fleshed out as in the prior segments. Overall, though, it is an excellent show and a must see for everyone to get a glimpse of the gay experience in America.


This movie is composed of three short stories, all of them about homosexuality and in the small city of Homer. The first on passes in 1954, when a navy officer (the great actress Brittany Murphy) returns to Homer after quitting Navy. When the locals find out that indeed she was expelled from the Navy because of sexual deviation (i.e., lesbianism), she is discriminated and rejected by them. The second one takes place in 1974, and is about a teacher of French, gay not assumed aiming to be the principal of his school, and his best student, who is not secure of his sexual identity. The last one is in 2000 and is about a gay wedding between two successful men. When I watch a movie, I never read anything about it, because I want to have my own opinion. This film was a great surprise for me: its proposal is to show and discuss the prejudice of the society (who shares the common ground) against homosexuals and it is very well presented. The screenplay, performances and direction are superb, but I really would like to highlight the first short story: Brittany Murphy is really a great actress and has an outstanding performance. My vote is eight.


Although I have seen many excellent "gay" movies, this movie tops them all. Along with Showtime's TV series "Queer as Folk", this movie accurately portrays the struggles and triumphs in the lives of most homosexuals. Luckily, I was able to purchase a copy on eBay (this movie is not available on DVD or VHS, except to members of the Academy Awards Nomination Committee), and I have shown it to all of my friends and family members. All agree that this movie should almost be mandatory viewing. I highly encourage any and everyone to take the time to watch this film. If you are a homosexual, then this film will make you feel great about who you are and your history. If you are not, then this film will certainly open your eyes as to what it means to be a gay or lesbian man or woman in the world today.


Like many three-part anthology movies, "Common Ground" is a definite mixed bag. An examination of changing attitudes toward gay people in the past half-century or so in a small Connecticut town, it was written by three prominent gay playwrites--Paula Vogel, Terrence McNally and Harvey Fierstein--and performed by a large cast of familiar actors obviously attracted by the weight and "importance" of the project.

Of the three stories, Vogel's opening segment is by far the best. Set is 1954, it follows a young Naval woman home to Homer, Connecticut after she is given a dishonorable discharge due to "sexual deviancy." Not surprisingly, her return home is not a happy one as news of her "crime" spreads and the townspeople--including her mother--turn on her in a disgusting (but understandable considering the ignorance of the era) display of intolerance. Rising actress Brittany Murphy (so good in very different roles in "Girl, Interrupted," TV's "David and Lisa," and "Clueless") is wonderful as the woman, displaying a touching range of emotions from wonder and excitement when she first visits a gay bar, to sadness and shame as the same townspeople who have known her all her life and at first welcome her return make it clear she is no longer welcome in their midst. She is ably supported by Margot Kidder (looking like she's aged forty years in the past twenty--a far cry from Lois Lane) as the mother and Helen Shaver as a sympathetic restaurant owner.

The second segment is also strong but not as well developed. Written by McNally and set in 1974, it centers on the harassment and hostility directed by bullies toward a gay high school student just emerging from the closet. Jonathan Taylor Thomas is surprisingly strong in this segment as the gay student--a far cry from his previous performances which quite frankly have never impressed me much. Steven Weber costars as a closeted gay teacher who refuses to help the student out of fear his secret will be revealed until a shocking act of violence in the school shower forces him to deal with his own lack of honesty about his sexuality.

What keeps this segment from hitting the bullseye is some unlikely plot developments in the last five minutes--and the character of Weber's lover, who doesn't seem to have much idea of what Weber could lose if he did come out and is, in my opinion, a wholly self-centered and unsympathetic partner. Let's face it, it's unrealistic to think that a gay teacher could come out in 1974 and even think of keeping his job. But the segment redeems itself with the resolution of the student's story--his character is true and believable and Thomas acquits himself nicely in the role. He deserves a chance at more roles like this than in mindless pap like "I'll Be Home for Christmas."

The final segment, unfortunately, is dreadful. Written by Fierstein, it centers on an unbelievable gay wedding and the relationship between a father and gay son played by Ed Asner and James LeGros. Set in the present day, the entire segment is marred by Fierstein's flip, bitchy gay humor and minor characters that are unnecessary. Fierstein even writes himself a role as a stereotypical, princing gay florist; personally, I find him to be much more appealing when he is playing against type, but that's only part of the problem: every time a valid point is made in the segment he shoots himself in the foot by following it with a Neil Simonesque gay joke that points out the fact that the entire episode is not grounded in reality but in a playwrite's fantasy. Sadly, it is also unrealistic to think that even in 2000, a small town of 24,000 would be so welcome to a gay wedding that the town council would approve it being held at the community center in front of a war memorial which is the centerpiece of the town square. In my own state of California, which is considered liberal and trend-setting, an anti-gay marriage proposition (#22) on this year's primary ballot enjoys widespread support so I seriously doubt a town would be so supportive and that only a handful of churchgoers and veterans would protest. Maybe I'm wrong, but sadly I don't think so.

In all, however, "Common Ground" is a noble, well-intentioned and worthwhile effort. I give it *** out of **** or a 7 out of 10.


A trilogy of gay/lesbian stories tracing societal attitudes towards homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle from the 1950's to the present, this is the first "legacy" film for gays.

Superbly written, acted and produced, the three tales revolve around the themes of prejudice and acceptance, with the middle story of a young student's "coming out" as an impetus for his role model teacher's lifestyle disclosure, being the standout episode and should be seen by anyone wrestling with their sexual identity.

Bravo Paramount and Showtime for this outstanding and compassionate film.


With the pedigreed authors and actors involved, I was expecting something very special from Common Ground. But, as I watched it, I was reminded of the propaganda films they showed in junior high and high school about the evils of drugs, and the threat of venereal disease. The script and direction were just about of that caliber. And the message seemed to be that being homosexual, in and of itself, somehow makes one noble. What twaddle. And before any of the PC brigade accuses me of being homophobic, I am in fact homosexual. And as such, I found this movie a real embarrassment.


The first time I watched Common Ground I actually sobbed. Unless a person is Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual, I really think it's very hard for heterosexuals to understand what many of us have gone through, or are currently going through!

This brilliant story links together three generations of gay and lesbian struggles in a mythical rural town in Connecticut. I came of age sexually in the second story, which takes place in the 1970's. I can identify only too well what the young gay man experienced at the hands of his fellow bigoted classmates. And it ain't pretty! But the courage and fortitude he showed to everyone made me feel proud - and relieved - because I know there are people actually like him in the real world!

While Common Ground ends on a positive note and Connecticut actually is one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, I wouldn't want to be holding a wedding (or similar) ceremony in a place like rural Oklahoma or in 2/3 of the United States, for that matter! The struggles of previous generations (the first two stories in the film) are still common in way too many places, even if substantial progress has been made in the West Coast, Mid-Atlantic, New England and Iowa (who would have guessed a gay person would have more rights in the heartland than in California? Good For You Iowa!) Unfortunately, the struggle for fairness and common sense needs to continue!

Few area of a person's life are more personal and important than one's own sexuality! I wonder how bigoted heterosexuals would feels if they woke up one morning on another planet and they were made to feel something was wrong with them for being straight instead of, let's say, bisexual! What, you don't engage in romantic relationships with BOTH genders! How strange! How odd! How could you possibly not be sexually attracted to both genders? What's wrong with you? This is a lovely fantasy I wish I could have every bigot experience!

I can only hope that in 2009 Common Ground is released on DVD and the extremely ridiculous "R" rating is downgraded to PG-13. To realize that a teenager struggling with his or her sexuality could not privately order Common Ground on their own is simply OUTRAGEOUS! The "R" rating and the fact that this film has not migrated to DVD speaks volumes about our society's utter stupidity when it comes to treating Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people fairly.

See also: Out of the Past: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Rights in America


I wasn't too sure what to expect of this Showtime original when I tuned into it. Listed many well known names and appeared promising. Three different story lines tied together with a constant location over several decades. Sounds OK.

That's just what it was , an OK film with an important message. I agreed with the message whole heatedly, just wish the film would have had a little stronger writing. Some parts were good, many too predictable. But I won't spoil any surprises, you'll have to watch and see if you agree.


I only saw part of this movie, but I loved it. I have many ties with Jonathan Taylor Thomas (Toby) in that movie -- It, I felt was well acted, and NO I don't like the movie because it has him in it :) But I only wish I could've seen the whole thing and I don't have cable. You will like this movie if you are open minded, or dealing with sexuality in itself - for me this movie provided a sense of homage, to know that I'm not alone, even though I know I"m not but this is a step for diverse sexualities and its acceptance. Thank god it has finally made its way to film, I only wish Hollywood started it sooner.


This film is about a little town in USA. Three stories are connected to each other, they take place in the 50s, 70s and 90s. The last part is most boring. I liked the middle one best, it´s about a teenager boy who learn to know that he is homosexual. And his french theacher is that too.

Common Ground stands up pretty well, it is an okay film. Actors like Eric Stoltz, Jason Priestley and, of course, Jonathan Taylor Thomas is good in it. JTT can not only act in comedies, he can also do more dramatic parts. And he really shines in CC.


These 3 stories are each so brilliant and wonderful... each in its own way. They describe what it was like to be gay in a small town in Connecticut in the 1950's, the 1970's, and in the year 2000. We see the hopelessness of the lesbian of the 50's - forced to move to Greenwich Village, and the torment of the perfect student/athlete of the 70's, who is nearly killed by his classmates for being gay. The stories ring true, and I can attest to the validity of them, because many of the same things happened to me.

The film includes many grand performances by a large number of our best actors and actresses, just as some of our best writers put the stories together. And it ends on a somewhat upbeat note. This film is a treat which should be required viewing in all schools and churches.

Don't listen to the negative reviewers of this great film. They seem to be shocked by how DECENT the gay characters in this film are. Well, guess what? Most of us ARE exactly like that. Yes, there is a need for films showing the full spectrum of gay people, and there ARE. Look for them. But the Brittany Murphy character in this film's 50's segment lived a story almost identical to that of my aunt. I myself had an experience VERY similar to that of Jonathan Taylor-Thomas in the 70's story. And I KNOW people living the 3rd segment today. So don't tell me these stories are "unreal." They are DEAD ON real. And my thanks to all three playrights for giving them to us.


As I heard, what´s the theme of "Common Ground", I thought first about other attempts like "In & Out", "Jeffrey" (also with Steven Weber) or "The Birdcage". Only another comedy ? No, this movie is completely different!

It shows the problems of this group of outsiders in a very strong and serious way. Through the different decades, "Common Ground" takes the time for different persons and times and tries to give an complete answer and evaluation. But this separation has in my opinion not only good sites. You can see the development in the treatment of homosexuality. But the time (around 30 minutes) is to short for the different episodes. So, it does not reach the ground of the problem. Many aspects are also named twice, especially in the first two episodes. And the message in episode three (All is better now. )is not believable for me and too trivial.

Despite of this, for me it is an must-see movie with great performances of the actors (especially Jonathan Taylor Thomas as a swimmer in part 2 !), an intelligent dramaturgy and an unconventional ending.


Even though I watched the film only for JTT, I found out the whole movie was great! The performances were realistic and I also like the fact that the characters were not casted by stereotype( gay people are feminine ( boys) or masculine ( girls). None of characters were stereotyped. Brittany Murphy played a discharged woman from the NAVY but she didn't act all masculine or had short boyish hair, JTT played a star swimmer who is going to Harvard ( the stereotype would be him playing a boy in the Drama society and the swimmers or the jocks would make fun of him, but he was a sports nut himself and the last one ( which I didn't see too much of). Being gay has nothing to do with how masculine or feminine people act. I liked JTT's segment more since the story hit close to home ( I am not gay but considering he is a senior in high school going of to college). I wish the director or the writers expanded more on the fact that he is going to Harvard. I truly loved Brittany and Jonathan's performances since they are much more younger and less experienced than the actors in the third segment. Their acting was well-done and very convincing. JTT's performance after he was beaten and raped was very sad and moving not to mention dramatic. I like Brittany from Clueless and in this movie, it showed off her dramatic skills. I like dramas and stuff.


Narrated by Eric Stoltz, who plays a man who has lived his entire life in a small town named Homer. He tells three tales of homophobia and how it is has effected the lives of several Homer citizens. Brittany Murphy is a girl in the navy who is dishonorably discharged after she experiments with another girl. When she returns home, her discharge papers are required for employment and the entire town knows that she's a "queer." Her mother (Margot Kidder) throws her out of the house and she's on her own,left to battle the cruel Homer residents. Jonathan Taylor Thomas stars in the "1974" segment as a homosexual teenager who is taunted by his swimteam and classmates. He seeks guidance from his teacher, played by Steven Weber, whom he suspects is gay. The teacher, however, fears losing his chance at becoming school principle and allows the tormenting to continue. In the final segment, a gay couple tries to marry in Homer with a negative community reaction.

"Common Ground" is a nice film about acceptance and tolerance, but it could have definitely done without the scene where Thomas' character is raped orally by a cruel team member. The scene should have been integral to the development of the film, but it just happens, no one speaks of it and the characters forget it ever happened (bad editing, or was it meant that way?) I don't know. That part confused me. But, overall, it was a decent movie, especially for Showtime. 7/10


My review for Death Valley: The Revenge Of Bloody Bill? I made it all the way through and it didn't stink. An unusual zombie concept (an old prospector seeking revenge from beyond the grave in a western ghost town) with an engaging score (for those who like death metal), the best thing that can be said is the movie kept me interested. Also, the acting wasn't horrible. But the script was amateurish, the dialogue was weak, the logic (that is, horror movie logic) was uneven and some of the camera shots were way too gimmicky (except for the flashbacks; those were cool). There are a lot of things that could have been done - simple things - to make it a much better movie: i.e, why is it one of the students trapped in the town knows the whole legend about Bloody Bill and yet none of the others, his friends, have even heard of it at all? Also, why does the little "population" count on the town sign keep ticking up after people are killed, but does not tick down for the zombies that have been destroyed? Niggling problems, but bothersome. Still, it was not the worst zombie movie I have ever seen - that distinction goes to House of the Dead, Flesheater, Children of the Living Dead, or Zombie Lake (take your pick).


A group of teens (on their way to a debating competition) are taken hostage by a drug dealer who is looking for his partner in crime. They are forced to drive to the dilapidated ghost-town of Sunset Valley. Here they are attacked by a load of zombies, led by the evil Bloody Bill, a Confederate soldier seeking revenge for the deaths of himself and his sister.

Byron Werner, the 'director' of this crap-fest, has definitely got ideas above his station. Instead of accepting that he's helming a low budget horror film, he goes all 'Tony Scott' on us and uses annoying directorial and editing techniques to excess: bleached out film stock, staccato editing, wobbly camera-work, coloured filters. This isn't art, Byron... neither is it a music video... it's schlock horror, so cut out the pretentious film-making and start off by learning how to tell a story!

The plot is a weak derivative mixture of elements from H.G. Lewis' 2000 Maniacs and Romero's Night of the Living Dead, without an ounce of the charm of either of these classics. The annoying teens are portrayed by a talentless bunch of nobodies and they deliver their lines as though reading off a board. The awful script is clichéd drivel, with dreadful dialogue and absolutely no logic. Hell, it even has the teens debating with each other whilst under attack from the living dead!

The 'special effects' are also lousy; the zombie makeup is extremely amateurish and the gore content is fairly low. Even the zombie extras are bad: they shuffle in a variety of unconvincing mannerssome fast, some slow, and, I'm convinced, some with grins on their faces.

I'm a great fan of zombie films and usually cut even the worst efforts some slack if they deliver ample blood 'n' guts, but Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill fails even with this simple task and receives the lowest possible rating from me.


While traveling in a van with their teacher for a contest, a group of college friends are abducted in a lonely road by the criminal Earl (Gregory Bastien), who forces them to go to the ghost town of Sunset Valley to meet his partner that was transporting drugs and money of their own. Once in the town, they realize that the dwellers are zombies and their leader is the evil Bloody Bill (Jeremy Bouvet), a Confederate soldier seeking revenge for the execution of his sister that was hanged by the population that was cursed by Bloody Bill for the eternity.

"Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill" could have funny lines and situations but it is too serious for a zombie movie. Further, the zombies move very fast, breaking the style originally adopted by George Romero in "Night of the Living Dead" and followed in other films of this genre. The story is predictable and the characters are forgettable, but the worst is the total lack of humor. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Vale da Morte: A Vingança de Bloody Bill" ("Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill")


why are zombies running now? must we break all rules? anyway...this movie has a horrible script...period. Also the camera work and editing were wayyy off. the zombies looked OK but bill looked like he was wearing a Halloween mask. People are talking about good gore in this film. WRONG. Good gore can be found in the Living Dead series...this my friend is horrible gore. I did kind of like the eating of the hand part but it was shot in such a weird way. i give the writers and the director a little credit just because this is a rather knew idea. There really is only so far you can take a zombie flick but these guys managed to give it a different spin. Still...that can't save such a horrible film and a half crap horror film. Watch it for originality but don't buy it or spend any money on it. If you find some homeless dude asleep in the alley clutching a copy of death valley...it might be worth the steal...but i warned you.


Okay, I like zombie movies. I really do, and I'm willing to forgive a lot when it comes to low budget zombie movies. Especially ones that have their tongue firmly pressed into their cheek. Having said that, I think this may be one of the worst zombie movies to make its way onto the Blockbuster video shelves in a long time (and that's pretty bad, considering there's dreck like "Corpses Are Forever" out there).

It's not worth going into the plot, because there really isn't one.

It's vaguely like From Dusk Till Dawn with zombies, but without the Tarantino dialogue and Rodriguez direction. If you wind up renting this cowpie, look for the best editorial mistake ever. It's toward the middle of the movie, where the black drug dealer (stereotypes anyone?) says something like, "With all due respect, if you can point that gun somewhere else" then... watch for it, he actually mouths the other actor's line. Best part of the movie.